SRT vs SCG in ODI while chasing
rk_u...@yahoo.com
Tendulkar:- 12,18,45,37,3,0,62,44,5,61 (Avg 28.7)
Ganguly:- 80,74,14,85,24,1,64,28,9,44 (Avg 42.3)
However,
To hell with stats, objectivity, niceties.
Ganguly is the passenger, culprit-in-chief, somehow manages runs.
Tendulkar is unequivocally the best ODI bat ever.
Who cares if he scored only 12 in the final? There was that
majestic pull shot he played, paisa wasool ho gaya.
RK- [SCG is worth defending in ODIs,worth bashing in tests]
Rod Prince
rk_u...@yahoo.com says...
> Tendulkar is unequivocally the best ODI bat ever.
I'm sure Bevan would have something to say about that.
Cheers,
Rod.
Gafoor
"Rod Prince" <ro...@hotmail.com.removethispart> wrote in message
news:MPG.16cae77e2b05d671989b7b@news-server...
Maybe you should read the Original Post completely
before following-up.
Rod Prince
I have. What's your point?
Cheers,
Rod.
samarth harish shah
He's already made it. It's not one you would like to hear.
-Samarth.
>
> Cheers,
> Rod.
>
Srinivas Chennamaraja
How many of those 10 matches did India won???
Srini
Nozza
"Rod Prince" <ro...@hotmail.com.removethispart> wrote in message
news:MPG.16cae77e2b05d671989b7b@news-server...
> rk_u...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Tendulkar is unequivocally the best ODI bat ever.
please dont compare Bevan to Tendulkar, look at the relative strengths of
each side. Bevan has been playing in a far stronger team his whole career.
rk_u...@yahoo.com
No SRT p--p replied.
They must have missed the post.
Hence reposting again (and also mailing to Vinay).
RK-
<rk_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3p15q$1a4u5o$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de...
Ben Gussey
"Nozza" <no...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c60884e$0$27608$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Rod Prince" <ro...@hotmail.com.removethispart> wrote in message
> news:MPG.16cae77e2b05d671989b7b@news-server...
> > In article <a3p15q$1a4u5o$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de>,
> > rk_u...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > > Tendulkar is unequivocally the best ODI bat ever.
>
> please dont compare Bevan to Tendulkar, look at the relative strengths of
> each side. Bevan has been playing in a far stronger team his whole career.
Yet, he always seems to stand out when his side is playing like shit. What's
your point?
--
Cheers Ben.
Vinay Santurkar
>
> Tendulkar:- 12,18,45,37,3,0,62,44,5,61 (Avg 28.7)
>
> Ganguly:- 80,74,14,85,24,1,64,28,9,44 (Avg 42.3)
>
> However,
>
Had seen RK's post today morning itself but did not feel it was worth
responding to because he was circulating pretty stale and outdated
information. But since he feels that he thinks he is Einstein and
invented something new, I am forced to respond to set things in
perspective and I am mailing him a copy so that he does not miss my
profound words of wisdom.
1. Sorry RK. I think you think I'm in the wrong profession. I am
nobody's p--p but you know what? You would have a booming career if
you change your profession to a sc----ger. You know guys who feast on
other people's misery. Or how about a role of a sa---ic vi---an in a
Bollywood pot boiler? For a guy whose day is made or broken strictly
depending on when SRT, Agarkar, and any other Mumbaikar or Punjabi
fails or succeeds, your are well and truly in the wrong profession.
2. Sorry again. I stole your thunder. I had already posted a few days
back saying that SRT has failed in run chases greater than 250 in
crucial matches after Sharjah 1998 against Aus. I also had numerous
posts in the course of the last 10 days where I have said that SCG is
a lot better and the key person if India is to succeed in a run chase.
And that I would like SCG to be batting from overs 15 to 40 at least
if India has to have a realistic chance of winning.
3. Sorry for a third time. You have excluded a successful effort SRT
in last 10 innings - at Kanpur where we had to chase 218 in 39 overs.
That counts as a run chase of 280 scaled over 50 overs. In which the
master runaway artist took us past the finish line with 87 NO. Oh I
get it. You wouldn't count that because the umpire did not give him
out when he was on zero in that match.
4. Sorry once again but I saw a response to your original post where
an innocent poster was wondering what was the outcome of the match in
those 10 innings when India was chasing 250 or more. Could you also
care to post the results of the 10 matches? The one can assess if
Ganguly's innings counted for anything or was it in the runaway
category as per your definition (like SRT's knock against Pak in
Chennai, you know).
5. Sorry for the last time, but it would be also good if you can post
their respective score in the last 10 innings when we batted first and
crossed 250 along with the outcome of the match. Guess you are not
motivated to look this one up because the results may not make your
day.
a. To hell with stats, objectivity, niceties.
b. SRT is gutless creep who somehow manages to get runs on dead asian
tracks to look great and get the multi million dollar contracts. He
has not only fooled all Indian fans but also all neutral, unbiased
international cricket experts, and all companies who pick him as the
brand ambassador, into believing that he is one of the best batsman in
the game. What nonsense?
c. Tendulkar is unequivocally the most overrated ODI bat ever. He is a
loser and choker to boot.
d. Who cares if he made 87 NO at Kanpur while helping India chase 218
in 30 overs? Wasn't he out on the first ball in that inning and ruled
not out by the local umpire?
e. Who cares if he has won India numerous matches when batting first?
Hasn't he run away when India bats second and also like he runs away
each time in the 4th innings of a test match. Darpok aadmi.
Cheers,
Vinay
rk_u...@yahoo.com
<mindless drivel deleted in the interest of sanity>
I read your reply 3 times (not because it touched new heights
in journalism) and just could not see any
relevance to what I posted. It just confirms what I already
knew about you: U don't read other's post and just blast off
based on your well enterenched views about the poster.
Would you please read my post again and try to answer what I
have asked it (sarcastically).
If it is still not clear to you, lemme put it clearly:-
1. Why is Ganguly not rated highly as SRT in ODI.
2. What has SRT done in ODI which Ganguly hasn't done.
3. Why is SCG bashed much more than SRT (in odis).
My post was not SRT bashing. It was SRT-SCG comparison
post, which you interpreted as SRT bashing bcos that's
what u are capable of.
RK-
mayurd
Guess who also runs away whenever it matters most
SM Gavaskar (Sunny Gavaskar)
Filter: in grand finals, in the 2nd innings.
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv
5w Ct St
unfiltered 108 3092 103* 35.13 1 27 1 1/10 25.00
0 22 0
filtered 6 52 32 26.00 0 0 - - -
- 2 0
Filter: in all finals, in the 2nd innings.
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv
5w Ct St
filtered 10 152 71 30.40 0 1 - - -
- 2 0
but what the hell despite all this SMG is truly great and a certain
coward who averages 68 in matches won in 2nd inn is hyped.
mayurd
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> but what the hell despite all this SMG is truly great and a certain
> coward who averages 68 in matches won in 2nd inn is hyped.
Mayur Doshi,
SMG???? Who calls SMG as great in ODI. Why are u dragging him.
This thread is about SCG vs SRT in ODIs.
Gosh what ego these SRT pimps have.They can't tolerate any other
*indian* player better than SRT.
Seriously, do u pimps even like any other player except SRT,
except of course aag(fire)kar.
RK-
Jai Natarajan
SCG's immense value to the team in ODIs since around the time of the 1999
world cup. No one seems to want to say the dreaded words "he is as good as
Sachin in ODIs". Imagine if he could run singles !!
I do long for some blinding knocks by SRT these days (like 80 off 44) which
he seems to have cut out altogether. Once in a while I'm sure he should do
it as a pressure release :)
jai
<rk_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3rd5n$1afchp$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de...
zRahul
are directing this to .
The bottom line is not 1st or 2nd innings . Crucial match or not so
crucial match . The bottom line is if you life is on the line (
actuall that would make it a crucial match for you at least ) and you
have a choice betwen SRT and SCG to be in your team then whom would
you choose.
Surma Bhopali
>
> RK- [SCG is worth defending in ODIs,worth bashing in tests]
I agree with your views reg Ganguly's position in ODIs. I guess many
people recognize this even though they may not raise their voice given
Ganguly's unfortunate popularity rating.
Bit off the topic, but your footnote inspired me to write something.
Given the recent form in tests, he could be dropped for the time
being. But his average does not suggest he is that bad in tests as
well. Here are averages for all Indian batsmen who played in 50+
innings (VVSL included despite this criterion). This shows Ganguly at
all time #11 despite his poor form for last couple of seasons and he
has average close to the likes of Vengsarkar and Vishy and better than
VVSL, Pataudi, Engineer, Wadekar, Jaisimha, etc. He may not compare
well with Tendulkar and Dravid in tests, but certainly can't be thrown
aside as rubbish.
Name Innings Ave
-----------------------------
SR Tendulkar 143 57.96
R Dravid 92 51.91
SM Gavaskar 214 51.12
VS Hazare 52 47.65
M Azharuddin 147 45.03
M Amarnath 113 42.5
PR Umrigar 94 42.22
DB Vengsarkar 185 42.13
NS Sidhu 78 42.13
GR Viswanath 155 41.93
SC Ganguly 87 40.44
DN Sardesai 55 39.23
VL Manjrekar 92 39.12
SV Manjrekar 61 37.14
VVS Laxman 49 37.02
RJ Shastri 121 35.79
CG Borde 97 35.59
MAK Pataudi 83 34.91
Yashpal Sharma 59 33.45
M Prabhakar 58 32.65
P Roy 79 32.56
NJ Contractor 52 31.58
CPS Chauhan 68 31.57
MH Mankad 72 31.47
FM Engineer 87 31.08
AL Wadekar 71 31.07
N Kapil Dev 184 31.05
ML Jaisimha 71 30.68
AD Gaekwad 70 30.07
K Srikkanth 72 29.88
SMH Kirmani 124 27.04
RG Nadkarni 67 25.7
KS More 64 25.7
SA Durani 50 25.04
Sougata Mukherjea
last Australian tour.
Here is his stats from 2000:
I Runs Hs Ave 100 50
19 723 98* 24.93 0 3
This is because he has some fundamental flaws in his technique that every
team now exploits.
Unless he acknowledges the faults and works on it, IMHO he won't last much
longer in tests.
- Sougata
"Surma Bhopali" <nanhaf...@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:622ae881.02020...@posting.google.com...
Vinay Santurkar
> "Vinay Santurkar" <vsant...@hotmail.com> wrote:-
>
> <mindless drivel deleted in the interest of sanity>
>
> I read your reply 3 times (not because it touched new heights
> in journalism) and just could not see any
> relevance to what I posted. It just confirms what I already
> knew about you: U don't read other's post and just blast off
> based on your well enterenched views about the poster.
Well entrenched views? I think the bulk of RSC will acknowledge that
you are the person guilty of the very thing that you are accusing me.
Your views about both players and posters are so deeply entrenched
that they never change. When I just started posting on RSC, you
clubbed me as a Mumbai pimp (based on my last name) without even
giving yourself a chance to look at my posts before forming an
opinion. And I have been one ever since. To use a beaten-to-death
cliché - a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. And I am
not a journalist so it is no surprise that my posts did not touch new
heights of journalism. But I think people can relate to it a lot more
than mindless drivel and slander you type each morning just because
you have uninhibited access to a keyboard and the internet.
> Would you please read my post again and try to answer what I
> have asked it (sarcastically).
>
> If it is still not clear to you, lemme put it clearly:-
>
> 1. Why is Ganguly not rated highly as SRT in ODI.
>
Why are you asking me? I am after all a SRT pimp with a huge axe to
grind. But the reason could be that SRT has bought off the entire
cricketing world with his deep pockets - all experts and all
contemporaries. That's the only reason why SRT is rated higher than
Ganguly.
My opinion, that of a SRT pimp, is that I never rate people -
especially two contemporaries as close in their performances as SRT
and SCG. I don't want to berate one of them just to prove that other
is better - its not at all constructive. I would like to see both of
them do well each time they go out to bat. Who cares who averages more
and where? I want them to win matches for India - period. And my
agenda is not to be happy when SCG fails (unlike yourself) - I feel
disappointed because India is the loser ultimately. I would be very
candid in admitting that SRT has not done well when India is chasing
huge totals - who doesn't have flaws or weaknesses? But I also
recognize that he is still our number 1 match winner in one dayers.
Will you ever acknowledge that? All you will focus on is his failure
in chasing 250+ runs.
SCG too has won us matches but Sachin has been around longer and hence
won us more matches. If SCG continues in the present vein for the next
5 years, he may well be rated higher by SRT by the experts and his
contemporaries. The other reason SRT gets more media attention is
because of the aura that surrounds him and people the world over
regarding him as a genius. I hope you have seen the movie Amadeus, you
remind of the number of people, including the main character, who were
envious of Mozart for his sheer genius - the utter simplicity with
which he could do things which the other could just dream about.
> 2. What has SRT done in ODI which Ganguly hasn't done.
>
Not a thing.
> 3. Why is SCG bashed much more than SRT (in odis).
>
I have never bashed SCG in odis. And all the SCG bashers put together
don't bash him much as you bash SRT. I have been on RSC for just over
6 months but I am yet to see you say anything even remotely positive
about SRT, without grudging and without putting reams of fine print.
But you will find a number of posts from me praising Ganguly's efforts
and acknowledging him as the key player in our one day fortunes.
> My post was not SRT bashing. It was SRT-SCG comparison
> post, which you interpreted as SRT bashing bcos that's
> what u are capable of.
>
> RK-
It might a case of "Cry Wolf" with you. You bash SRT so often that
everything you say and do sounds like SRT bashing. Can't help it. You
have built your reputation after years of hard work on RSC. It's not
that easy to shed that image, I'm afraid.
Take it easy my friend,
Vinay
Amol Cricketwallah
> The problem with SCG in tests is that he has been really pathetic since the
> last Australian tour.
> Here is his stats from 2000:
> I Runs Hs Ave 100 50
> 19 723 98* 24.93 0 3
> This is because he has some fundamental flaws in his technique that every
> team now exploits.
Except he has had those flaws for quite a long time now IMHO, Sougata -
remember, we even had a thread about this way back in 1999 (after the
Pakistan/India ODIs at home IIRC, must have been about April 1999?). And
yet he survived with it quite well before that - even though he was obviously
not as good a bat as SRT or Dravid (no matter the stats), he was still better
than most of the rest in those days and no questions were ever raised about
dropping him.
I think it isnt just the old "rising ball" flaw, myself. That is a part of
it, and is an obvious flaw - not in the sense that he might get out to
those balls right away, but much more IMHO he cant score off those
balls. So when he comes in to bat, the obvious thing to do is to bring on
the paceman who can bowl short at his body - he might get out, but if he
doesnt he wont be able to get off to a good start with easy runs either,
and so the pressure will continue to build.
I think what has happened mostly is that he has allowed that pressure to
build, and then get to him and materially affect his batting. I still
remember clearly his innings against RSA in Bombay in early 2000 - he came
in with Donald and Pollock bowling quite well, rising deliveries, and they
bowled to him with a 7-2 field. And he couldnt get it away for runs at all.
He got one off his hips for 2 down to fine-leg, but that was it - he was
scoreless for about 23 balls IIRC apart from that. And then, he got a ball
that was not quite drive-able length around off-stump, and he forced the
drive anyway in an attempt to score some runs - and instead gave a quite
comfortable catch to mid-off.
I think that sort of thing has happened a bit too often - he has gotten
out a lot to edges/catches outside off-stump, not just to his "percieved
weakness" with short balls on the body. And that is because he has forced
the issue a little IMHO, in an attempt to get runs, playing shots that dont
need to be played.
He has also a little ill-luck, and bad form of course. And, combined with
the pressure of not getting runs and being captain, that has all sort of
built higher and higher. He has tried different methods, even trying to
hit himself out of trouble sometimes and thus giving quite a few chances -
his match-winning 98* vs SL is an example. I was hoping that sort of innings
would actually take some pressure off him, since the runs had come that one
time, and he could revert to his normal self. But so far he has not managed
to do it.
> Unless he acknowledges the faults and works on it, IMHO he won't last much
> longer in tests.
>
True. But its more than that IMHO - he needs to get runs in the Ranjis now,
for example, just to get the feel of a long innings at the first-class
level. To re-learn how to build a long innings, which he used to know in
the old days despite the weaknesses (India played RSA at home in 1996,
followed by RSA away and WI away. At the end of the WI tour, Ganguly was
actually dropped for the last test. The next test was in SL, and in the
first innings India was in trouble when Ganguly came in, and he *really*
struggled against Vaas - he got at least 2 short balls where he flailed
desperately and popped it up in the air, luckily landing between fielders.
But he didnt panic, he didnt change his game, and he ground his way to a
very important century IIRC - he knew how to play a real fc innings then,
very well. He thus reestablished himself in the side, and then proceeded to
have some terrific innnings in the next few months at the test level).
I think he knows this, BTW - its why he chose to play against Australia
on a very dead Kotla pitch last year, in the BPXI game, after the first
test at Wankhede. It was an attempt to play an fc game without test match
pressure, to re-learn long innings etc. It failed - he looked shaky, was
very lucky, and then got better and progressed to 40-odd, and then threw
it away waltzing down the pitch to Colin Miller IIRC. And it is why he
has chosen to play for Bengal against Gujarat under Rohan Gavaskar's
captaincy, only 2 days after leading India in 6 ODIs (with all the travel
involved in that, and that after playing a test series followed by a
Challenger Trophy). Yesterday he blew another chance - a nice 30, and
then hit the veteran off-spinner into cover's hands.
Still, the main thing is that he knows what he needs. And is playing Ranjis
to try and fix it - he should have a great opportunity against a weak Gujarat
attack in the 2nd innings here too (and probably more in the Ranji semis
etc :-) And then there is Zimbabwe coming to town, and they arent very tough
on our pitches - several good opportunities there.
He should have it fixed before we travel to WI or England, and then everything
might yet be fine. It is only if we get to England and he still hasnt
fixed things that it might start getting to be very difficult IMHO - with
them having a good pace attack, trying to find form will be much harder
against them than before.
Sadiq [ who thinks 2nd innings at Eden might do the trick ] Yusuf
> - Sougata
>
Amol Cricketwallah
>
> Would you please read my post again and try to answer what I
> have asked it (sarcastically).
>
> If it is still not clear to you, lemme put it clearly:-
>
> 1. Why is Ganguly not rated highly as SRT in ODI.
>
Just one point, BTW (since Iam feeling brave :-)
You pointed out that Srinath and Agarkar have similar averages in ODIs,
not very different wickets/match (with Agarkar's slightly better), and
Agarkar actually has almost as many 4-fers in ODIs as Srinath does in
fewer games (Agarkar has 6 4-fers to Srinath's 7 4-fers IIRC?). But Srinath
is still better, because his runs/over is almost 0.5 runs/over less, and that
is very important in ODIs (you will find almost no "commentator" who will
ever regard Agarkar as nearly as good as Srinath even in ODIs, BTW, and
they'd be right too IMHO).
Similarly, Ganguly averages 44 in ODIs with 18 centuries. Tendulkar
averages 44 in ODIs with 31 centuries. But Ganguly has a strike-rate
(according to Howzstat) of 73.8, while Tendulkar has a strike-rate of
87.5. This works out to a difference of 0.82 runs/over less, if Ive done
the math correctly.
Surely that offers some logical explanation, if youre looking for one? (BTW,
I personally dont believe most of the "commentators" etc go by a logical
explanation anyway. They just look at a batsman or bowler, and decide
whether he is good or not, and then keep that opinion for both tests and
ODIs usually. Thus with Ganguly struggling in tests in the past year, that
is what dominates their minds, and so they downgrade him overall, even in
ODIs. Just like Agarkar was downgraded enough to be dropped for the 2nd ODI
against Australia at home - exactly 2 ODIs after he won Man of the Series
against Zimbabwe, IIRC?)
As a result, BTW, until Ganguly's test troubles started a year and a bit
ago, he was rated *very* high - most Indian journos and experts were
unanimous in the view that India had 2 of the best around, and that the
opening partnership was the greatest in the history of ODI cricket (far
better than Greenidge/Haynes or any of those other overrated guys :-) Just
like, a little more than 2 years ago now, India was supposed to have one of
the greatest three-fer-middle-order combos *ever* - anyone remember the
much-loved and fondly-remembered Tridev? Whatever happened to it, I
wonder (well, ok, I know what happened to it - Akram, Shoaib, Saqlain,
Mcgrath, Lee, Donald and Pollock happened to it, by turns :-)
Sadiq [ who remembers the 3 W's being invoked for comparison ] Yusuf
>
> RK-
Vinay Santurkar
> "mayurd" <fuzzys...@rediffmail.com> wrote:-
>
> > but what the hell despite all this SMG is truly great and a certain
> > coward who averages 68 in matches won in 2nd inn is hyped.
>
> Mayur Doshi,
>
> SMG???? Who calls SMG as great in ODI. Why are u dragging him.
> This thread is about SCG vs SRT in ODIs.
>
> Gosh what ego these SRT pimps have.They can't tolerate any other
> *indian* player better than SRT.
Isn't SMG Da best Indian Cricketer ever in your book? So when one
talks about Da best Indian cricketer ever, one does have to weigh in
performances in one day matches as well. I agree that the thread is
about SRT and SCG but aren't we all guilty of dragging our own
unrelated fetishes into threads at one stage or the other?
Ok, enough drivel. To get the point, what Mayur is trying to say is
that no Indian batsman (even legends like SMG) have been good while
chasing huge totals. That explains why India has had a very poor track
record of chasing in general. So using phrases like running away is
very disparaging for any player - especially those of the caliber of
SRT, SCG (odis), and SMG.
>
> Seriously, do u pimps even like any other player except SRT,
> except of course aag(fire)kar.
>
> RK-
To pilfer your phrase, "please don't ever again mention Agarkar and
SRT in the same article".
Cheers,
Vinay
rk_u...@yahoo.com
"Vinay Santurkar" <vsant...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
> But I also
> recognize that he is still our number 1 match winner in one dayers.
No 1 match winner?? Any proof.
I can recollect SCG doing more than SRT in ODIs.
vs Pakistan.
Karachi 1997
Dhaka 1998
Adelaide 2000
I am aware that SRT is too good against NZ/ZIM/Lanka on asian tracks.
Since I don't follow/remember those matches, may be you are
right.
> Will you ever acknowledge that? All you will focus on is his failure
> in chasing 250+ runs.
To use ur own logic: why should I do that. there are hazar posters
going gaga over a sweet 25 from SRT :-)
RK-
Mike Holmans
Santurkar) tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Ok, enough drivel. To get the point, what Mayur is trying to say is
>that no Indian batsman (even legends like SMG) have been good while
>chasing huge totals. That explains why India has had a very poor track
>record of chasing in general.
Are you sure that this isn't really a function of the dreadful Indian
fielding?
Say that 260 would be a good total on a certain pitch. So a decent
one-day side (ie not England or WI) gets to bat first, and bat well
enough to make 260 in normal circumstances, but the Indian fielders
gift them a further 40 runs so they end up with 300.
Since this decent opposition can actually field properly, India don't
get given 40 free runs, so they have to chase 300 on a 260 pitch and
naturally fall short.
Cheers,
Mike
mayurd
in ODIs SCG is better abroad. SRT has sucked as an opener abroad. And
SMG is better than SRT in tests. happy ?
mayur doshi
rk_u...@yahoo.com
"mayurd" <fuzzys...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> in ODIs SCG is better abroad. SRT has sucked as an opener abroad. And
> SMG is better than SRT in tests. happy ?
did the smoke detector/fire alarm go off when u wrote
this :-)
RK-
Vinay Santurkar
> "Vinay Santurkar" <vsant...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
> > But I also
> > recognize that he is still our number 1 match winner in one dayers.
>
> No 1 match winner?? Any proof.
>
> I can recollect SCG doing more than SRT in ODIs.
>
> vs Pakistan.
> Karachi 1997
> Dhaka 1998
> Adelaide 2000
>
> I am aware that SRT is too good against NZ/ZIM/Lanka on asian tracks.
> Since I don't follow/remember those matches, may be you are
> right.
SRT's overall record - 286 11069 186* 43.92 31 55
SRT's record in Wins 136 6717 186* 61.62 24 31
SCG's overall record 186 7333 183 44.17 18 43
SCG's record in Wins 81 4162 183 63.06 14 22
We have won 47.5% of the matches that SRT's played in. And in those
matches, his average is 18 points more than this overall average.
Further he has scored 77% of his centuries and 56% of his 50's in the
matches he has won. SCG has won 43.5 matches he has played in. His
average is also 19 points more than his usual in the Wins. He also has
77% of centuries and 51% of the 50's in the Wins. So by and large,
when Sachin (and to a lesser extent SCG) does well, we win. If they
doesn't, we lose. But Sachin is clearly the number 1 match winner so
far and SCG is the number 2.
> To use ur own logic: why should I do that. there are hazar posters
> going gaga over a sweet 25 from SRT :-)
>
> RK-
Quite the contrary. SRT fans expect a 100 from him each time he goes
out to bat. A score of 25 from SRT is considered as bad as a duck.
Cheers,
Vinay
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> M R HS AVG 100 50
> SRT's overall record - 286 11069 186* 43.92 31 55
> SRT's record in Wins 136 6717 186* 61.62 24 31
>
> SCG's overall record 186 7333 183 44.17 18 43
> SCG's record in Wins 81 4162 183 63.06 14 22
>
> We have won 47.5% of the matches that SRT's played in. And in those
> matches, his average is 18 points more than this overall average.
> Further he has scored 77% of his centuries and 56% of his 50's in the
> matches he has won. SCG has won 43.5 matches he has played in. His
> average is also 19 points more than his usual in the Wins. He also has
> 77% of centuries and 51% of the 50's in the Wins. So by and large,
> when Sachin (and to a lesser extent SCG) does well, we win. If they
> doesn't, we lose. But Sachin is clearly the number 1 match winner so
> far and SCG is the number 2.
why is that you are resorting to stats when it suits you.
Have you forgotten Kaps vs Srinath argument we had few months
back. What was that u were telling at that time: stats lie :-)
SRT and SCG have played together more than 150 matches
in every continent. That is enuf sample.
Please find out who has more match winning knocks against
RSA/PAK/AUS/WI, preferably on non asian grounds. You may
still be right about SRT. I don't follow ODI records that
much (except firekar). However its better to double check.
RK-
Gafoor
news:a3tllh$1assoj$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de...
> To use ur own logic: why should I do that. there are hazar posters
> going gaga over a sweet 25 from SRT :-)
That's Laxman, not SRT.
rk_u...@yahoo.com
Vinay Santurkar wrote:
M R HS AVG 100 50
> SRT's overall record - 286 11069 186* 43.92 31 55
> SRT's record in Wins 136 6717 186* 61.62 24 31
>
> SCG's overall record 186 7333 183 44.17 18 43
> SCG's record in Wins 81 4162 183 63.06 14 22
>
> We have won 47.5% of the matches that SRT's played in. And in those
> matches, his average is 18 points more than this overall average.
> Further he has scored 77% of his centuries and 56% of his 50's in the
> matches he has won. SCG has won 43.5 matches he has played in. His
> average is also 19 points more than his usual in the Wins. He also has
> 77% of centuries and 51% of the 50's in the Wins. So by and large,
> when Sachin (and to a lesser extent SCG) does well, we win. If they
> doesn't, we lose. But Sachin is clearly the number 1 match winner so
> far and SCG is the number 2.
Kambli has won us 55% of matches he has played in (58 wins in 104).
Kambli has 78% of his 50s in won matches.
Kambli has 50% increase in avg (16 points) in won matches compared to
40% increase of Sachin & Dada.
Forget SRT and SCG. Our real ODI God is Kambli .
warm regards.
RK-
Jai Natarajan
The bowling+ the fielding+ineptness against tailenders ensures that Indian
batsmen always have to chase or set 40-50 more than par for the conditions.
No way you can sustain that over a period of time even with Tendulkar +
Ganguly. As I said before, very rarely can you succeed this way, notably
being SL in WC 1996 where they backed themselves to match any total. But
fell apart after that until they lined up their bowling and fielding again.
I think it's fair to say SA and Aus base their success on keeping opponents
within the par for the course and on reasonable occasions also destroying
them. On the occasional bad days they raise their game or fail. With India
it's the converse !
jai
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iim46uok8fjtf5i00...@4ax.com...
Jai Natarajan
fire) :)
jai
<rk_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3u6tc$1ai0ae$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de...
Sundar Subramanian
> "Please find out who has more match winning knocks against
> RSA/PAK/AUS/WI, preferably on non asian grounds. You may
Why stop there? Add "and preferably chasing a target of 250 or more, and
preferably when others fail, and preferably with a strike rate of more than
100, and preferably when the bowlers are not Warne or some spinner, etc etc"
:-)
> still be right about SRT. I don't follow ODI records that
> much (except firekar). However its better to double check.
Add also "except when Sachin fails to score, or except when in the last ten
ODI's another batsman's average appears to better Sachin's etc etc."
RK, you are wonder man!
Best,
Sundar
Mike Holmans
<sun...@infi.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>rk_u...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> "Please find out who has more match winning knocks against
>> RSA/PAK/AUS/WI, preferably on non asian grounds. You may
>
>Why stop there? Add "and preferably chasing a target of 250 or more, and
>preferably when others fail, and preferably with a strike rate of more than
>100, and preferably when the bowlers are not Warne or some spinner, etc etc"
>:-)
Give him another minute or two and he'll start asking for
match-winning knocks in games which India lost.
Cheers,
Mike
rk_u...@yahoo.com
"Sundar Subramanian" <sun...@infi.net> wrote :-
> > "Please find out who has more match winning knocks against
> > RSA/PAK/AUS/WI, preferably on non asian grounds. You may
>
> Why stop there? Add "and preferably chasing a target of 250 or more, and
> preferably when others fail, and preferably with a strike rate of more
than
> 100, and preferably when the bowlers are not Warne or some spinner, etc
etc"
> :-)
I will when needed :-)
Remember this golden principle: Never ask
for anything more than necessary. My above query itself is enuf
to irritate SRT fans and make them writh in excruciating pain.
Once SRT *catches* up with SCG in match winning performance against
*strong bowling* teams, I will add new condition. Till then
have a nice one.
RK-
Augustus Fink-Nottle
>Kambli has won us 55% of matches he has played in (58 wins in 104).
>Kambli has 78% of his 50s in won matches.
>Kambli has 50% increase in avg (16 points) in won matches compared to
>40% increase of Sachin & Dada.
>Forget SRT and SCG. Our real ODI God is Kambli .
>
>warm regards.
>RK-
First sensible post from you in a long time. Kambli will be a god even in
Tests and the saviour of Indian cricket if he is given a decent chance.
awaiting flames,
Gussie
samarth harish shah
> no, that will go off when he writes about Aag (there's no smoke without
> fire) :)
LOL!
-Samarth.
Sundar Subramanian
> My above query itself is enuf
> to irritate SRT fans and make them writh in excruciating pain.
So you think! There is limit even for hallucinating man :-) Seriously, what
gives you the impression that you "make Sachin fans writhe in excruciating
pain"? Is it another instance of mind-reading or just plain bravado or a
convex combination of both? Or is it in the vain hope that strength of voice
alone will suffice to drown reason? Beware, for all you know they might be
writhing in excruciating discomfort seeing one of their fellow Indians making
an ass of himself time and again :-)
> Once SRT *catches* up with SCG in match winning performance against
> *strong bowling* teams, I will add new condition.
Great. I look forward to it! Can't bate my curiosity, as to how the next act
will open up, in fact. You must have noticed Sachin fans quivering from head
to foot wondering over the prospect of such a possibility, otherwise you
wouldn't be so confident :-)
> Till then
> have a nice one.
Sure, will have. You too :-)
Best,
Sundar
Sashini Kannan
"Sundar Subramanian" <sun...@infi.net> wrote in message
news:3C634141...@infi.net...
> rk_u...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > My above query itself is enuf
> > to irritate SRT fans and make them writh in excruciating pain.
>
> So you think! There is limit even for hallucinating man :-) Seriously,
what
> gives you the impression that you "make Sachin fans writhe in excruciating
> pain"? Is it another instance of mind-reading or just plain bravado or a
> convex combination of both? Or is it in the vain hope that strength of
voice
> alone will suffice to drown reason? Beware, for all you know they might be
> writhing in excruciating discomfort seeing one of their fellow Indians
making
> an ass of himself time and again :-)
>
LOL!!! :)
rk_u...@yahoo.com
Vinay,
No reply. Did u new best friend Sundar help you :-)
Anyhow in one of ur earlier replies to this thread you mentioned
that the sample size of SRT/SCG ODI is not enuf outside Asia. Right?
OK fine. Now SCG has played 3 tests in Aus and 5 tests in RSA.
Is that sample size sufficient? If no, then why bash his batting.
If yes, then how is SRT's ODI sample not enuf.
Whether or not to use stats is ur prerogative. But atleast be
consistent.
warm regards.
RK-
Vinay Santurkar
> rk_u...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Kambli has won us 55% of matches he has played in (58 wins in 104).
> > Kambli has 78% of his 50s in won matches.
> > Kambli has 50% increase in avg (16 points) in won matches compared to
> > 40% increase of Sachin & Dada.
> > Forget SRT and SCG. Our real ODI God is Kambli .
>
> Vinay,
>
> No reply. Did u new best friend Sundar help you :-)
>
You got to be kidding. Did you seriously think I would reply to the
bit about Kambli that you posted above? Apart from you, nobody needs
any further evidence on SRT is the number 1 match winner to date for
India in ODIs. And you so told Mayur Doshi so rudely. This thread is
about SRT and SCG. From where the hell did Kambli come into the
picture? To pilfer your copyrighted line once again - please don't
even mention Kambli in the same article as SCG and SRT. It will only
reduce your already shrinking credibity further on RSC.
Regarding Sundar, he seems like a very decent person who writes very
good posts and seems like a person whom I'd like to be friends with.
Hey, we can be friends too, you know. Because I think regardless of
your abrasive posting style, you are a decent guy whom I'd definitely
like to meet some day. If I do make it to Toronto one day, I will
surely look you up.
> Anyhow in one of ur earlier replies to this thread you mentioned
> that the sample size of SRT/SCG ODI is not enuf outside Asia. Right?
>
Absolutely.
> OK fine. Now SCG has played 3 tests in Aus and 5 tests in RSA.
> Is that sample size sufficient? If no, then why bash his batting.
> If yes, then how is SRT's ODI sample not enuf.
I bashed SCG's batting in Aus and RSA? Proof please. SCG has a minor
technical flaw in his batting technique which everybody from SMG,
Geoff Boycott, and his grand mum agree there is - nothing more,
nothing less. It's not a serious enough problem according to these
experts that cannot be rectified. Given Ganguly's obvious talent and
determination, there is no reason why he cannot be a great test player
as well and blast the Aus and SA players on their home grounds with
the same venom as he does in the ODI's. Does that answer your
question?
> Whether or not to use stats is ur prerogative. But atleast be
> consistent.
>
> warm regards.
>
> RK-
That I agree. I am inconsistent with the use of stats. Because I still
feel that they don't tell the entire story. They give strong
indications about a player's abilities and performances but cannot
give the complete picture. I still stand by that.
But coming to you, whether you believe what stats say or not is ur
prerogative. But at least be consistent. You can't swear by stats
during the course of your entire career in RSC and now ignore what the
numbers say for certain select players.
Cheers and Have a Nice Weekend,
Vinay
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> You got to be kidding. Did you seriously think I would reply to the
> bit about Kambli that you posted above? Apart from you, nobody needs
> any further evidence on SRT is the number 1 match winner to date for
> India in ODIs.
Great. Now you started speaking for everyone.
> From where the hell did Kambli come into the
> picture? To pilfer your copyrighted line once again - please don't
> even mention Kambli in the same article as SCG and SRT. It will only
> reduce your already shrinking credibity further on RSC.
I dragged Kambli not bcos I think he is a great match winner,
but to prove ur stupidity of *not* analysing stats of SCG/SRT.
Can you post stats of them outside the flat tracks of
asia. Abhee doodh ka doodh, pani ka pani ho jayega.
> But coming to you, whether you believe what stats say or not is ur
> prerogative. But at least be consistent. You can't swear by stats
> during the course of your entire career in RSC and now ignore what the
> numbers say for certain select players.
I swear by stats and that's why I drill down into weak attacks/
strong attacks. This I have been doing for ages.
For eg. SRT's career avg is ~58. Terrific.
Against RSA/PAK/AUS (curious coincidence- the 3 best
attack he faced): Avg: < 40.
Againt other countries: > 70.
Stats zindabad.
warm regards.
RK-
PS: take it easy. I have nothing against u. It's just that
I can't resist flaming in rsc, specially when it comes to
juicy topics.
Sundar Subramanian
> Did u new best friend Sundar help you :-)
At least you *are* consistent in mind-reading, although the verity of your
claims leaves much to be desired (you claim it is 90% effective, but I
disagree). Also, why drag my name? By the looks of it, Vinay is doing a far
better job than I would ever be able to do. I am mystified why he takes the
trouble, though, seeing the predictable response that censors all relevant
stuff and focuses only on those not so relevant.
> Anyhow in one of ur earlier replies to this thread you mentioned
> that the sample size of SRT/SCG ODI is not enuf outside Asia. Right?
>
> OK fine. Now SCG has played 3 tests in Aus and 5 tests in RSA.
> Is that sample size sufficient? If no, then why bash his batting.
> If yes, then how is SRT's ODI sample not enuf.
Why are ODI's suddenly so alluring?
> Whether or not to use stats is ur prerogative. But atleast be
> consistent.
Good advice, but one that should be practiced by the giver first :-)
Best,
Sundar ["consistency" season in RSC now] Subramanian
Vinay Santurkar
> Vinay Santurkar wrote:
>
> > You got to be kidding. Did you seriously think I would reply to the
> > bit about Kambli that you posted above? Apart from you, nobody needs
> > any further evidence on SRT is the number 1 match winner to date for
> > India in ODIs.
>
> Great. Now you started speaking for everyone.
Surely my opinion is more representative of the ground realities than
yours. If you dispute my contention, you pronounce who the number 1
match winner for India in ODI's is. And if not, tough as it might be
on you, at least have the moral turpitude to acknowledge that SRT is
indeed the number 1 match winner for India in ODI's.
> I dragged Kambli not bcos I think he is a great match winner,
> but to prove ur stupidity of *not* analysing stats of SCG/SRT.
Here is a quick pop quiz for you:
Q. What is the objective of playing ODI matches?
A. For having great averages in all countries when your country is
loosing matches left, right, and center? NOT. In my book it is for
winning matches.
Q. Where does India win its vast majority of ODI matches?
A. On the fast and bouncy pitches of Eng, SA, and Aus. NOT. On the
flat tracks of Asia.
Q. Who has the most significant contributions till date for winning us
ODI matches?
A. Unambigously, SRT.
> Can you post stats of them outside the flat tracks of
> asia. Abhee doodh ka doodh, pani ka pani ho jayega.
I leave that as an exercise for you because I don't have the time. In
any case, we play very few matches in those conditions and lose a vast
majority of them. So what's the point of looking at details of these
matches where we crap anyway as a team? I'd rather look at the
positives than the negatives.
>
> I swear by stats and that's why I drill down into weak attacks/
> strong attacks. This I have been doing for ages.
>
> For eg. SRT's career avg is ~58. Terrific.
> Against RSA/PAK/AUS (curious coincidence- the 3 best
> attack he faced): Avg: < 40.
> Againt other countries: > 70.
>
First of all at least get your facts right before posting the numbers.
Secondly, what's illogical about finding run getting difficult
against the best attacks? Isn't that why those bowling attacks are
called great/good? This is true for every batsman who has played
cricket. They would obviously get more runs against weaker bowling and
lesser against the good bowling. Richards averages 62 against a
mediocre Eng attack but failed when confronted with Lille and Thommo
at their best. His overall average against Aus is 44. Does that make
him any less great?
As I illustrated in the other thread, your GOD, SMG consistently
crapped against good bowling attacks:
1. In England on all tours barring one.
2. In Aus against Lillee and Pascoe.
3. In WI against Holding, Garner and Croft.
4. In NZ against Hadlee.
I don't see you ever holding that against SMG and neither do I.
Regardless of the above, I still think SMG is one of the all time
greats. But in your case, it is one set of rules for SRT and different
everybody else. I know genius is difficult to accept but don't be in
denial.
> PS: take it easy. I have nothing against u.
Likewise.
Cheers,
Vinay
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> Surely my opinion is more representative of the ground realities than
> yours. If you dispute my contention, you pronounce who the number 1
> match winner for India in ODI's is. And if not, tough as it might be
> on you, at least have the moral turpitude to acknowledge that SRT is
> indeed the number 1 match winner for India in ODI's.
Of course he is # 1 match winner for India on flat asian tracks.
I don't deny it.
> I leave that as an exercise for you because I don't have the time. In
> any case, we play very few matches in those conditions and lose a vast
> majority of them. So what's the point of looking at details of these
> matches where we crap anyway as a team? I'd rather look at the
> positives than the negatives.
That is a very good point. I will use this to defend
Kumble/Srinath in test matches. Thanks for telling me this.
> Secondly, what's illogical about finding run getting difficult
> against the best attacks? Isn't that why those bowling attacks are
> called great/good? This is true for every batsman who has played
> cricket. They would obviously get more runs against weaker bowling and
> lesser against the good bowling. Richards averages 62 against a
> mediocre Eng attack but failed when confronted with Lille and Thommo
> at their best. His overall average against Aus is 44. Does that make
> him any less great?
>
> As I illustrated in the other thread, your GOD, SMG consistently
> crapped against good bowling attacks:
>
> 1. In England on all tours barring one.
>
> 2. In Aus against Lillee and Pascoe.
>
> 3. In WI against Holding, Garner and Croft.
>
> 4. In NZ against Hadlee.
>
> I don't see you ever holding that against SMG and neither do I.
> Regardless of the above, I still think SMG is one of the all time
> greats. But in your case, it is one set of rules for SRT and different
> everybody else. I know genius is difficult to accept but don't be in
> denial.
So u agree that there is nothing great about SRT. He just happens
to be another v.good batsman of his era. What is so special
about him? Reading rsc, I get the impression that he is DA best
and it is an insult to compare him with past players like
IVAR/SMG Chappel etc.
RK-
Jai Natarajan
> I leave that as an exercise for you because I don't have the time. In
> any case, we play very few matches in those conditions and lose a vast
> majority of them. So what's the point of looking at details of these
> matches where we crap anyway as a team? I'd rather look at the
> positives than the negatives.
This logic is mindboggling. Do you propose to rate players based on only
situations where they do well & exclude the bad data ?
Debang Gandhi is then one of India's best ever openers and Anil Kumble and
Venkatapathi Raju form the deadliest bowling pair since Marshall and
Roberts. Also, neglecting Graham Hick's small and insignificant test
failures he stands head and shoulders above most batsmen in history.
Applying the same logic to Ajay Sharma he is a much better batsman than
Sachin Tendulkar.
jai
Vinay Santurkar
> Vinay Santurkar wrote:
>
> Of course he is # 1 match winner for India on flat asian tracks.
> I don't deny it.
Isn't it here that we not only play the bulk of our cricket and win
the bulk of our matches? And just because its on Asian tracks can any
Tom, Dick, and Harry win matches for India? If that was the case, we
would have match winners in the Indian team by the droves. You make it
sound as if winning matches is a walk in the park. Winning matches is
not an easy job - not even on the flat Asian tracks. And to do it
consistently year after year.
> > I leave that as an exercise for you because I don't have the time. In
> > any case, we play very few matches in those conditions and lose a vast
> > majority of them. So what's the point of looking at details of these
> > matches where we crap anyway as a team? I'd rather look at the
> > positives than the negatives.
>
> That is a very good point. I will use this to defend
> Kumble/Srinath in test matches. Thanks for telling me this.
Why don't you spend time and research our performances in whatever
geographies you feel are great and churn out the numbers on who the
match winners for India are? Frankly, I don't have the time and even
if the number indicate something, you will always have enough
ammunition to run them down on one pretext or the other. Thank you
very much - I am not getting into this.
> So u agree that there is nothing great about SRT. He just happens
> to be another v.good batsman of his era. What is so special
> about him?
Absolutely, he is one of the v. good batsman of his era - nothing
more, nothing less. And this v. good category includes probably about
3 to 5 players max. What is special about him is that he is genius. I
mean the kind of shots that he plays and the absolute ease that he
does it with is something not everybody can do. Viv Richards too was
similar in the audacious and breath taking shots he played. That's why
is he respected by all his peers and contemporaries. So there can be
lot of players who can accumulate runs but very few who have this rare
quality of making batting look simple. Do you get what is special
about SRT?
> Reading rsc, I get the impression that he is DA best
> and it is an insult to compare him with past players like
> IVAR/SMG Chappel etc.
>
> RK-
That's your assumption and just the excuse you need to bash SRT.
Nobody balanced poster would ever say that.
Cheers,
Vinay
Vinay Santurkar
>
>
> This logic is mindboggling. Do you propose to rate players based on only
> situations where they do well & exclude the bad data ?
>
No. But conventional logic does not work with the poster I was
addressing my article to.
> Debang Gandhi is then one of India's best ever openers and Anil Kumble and
> Venkatapathi Raju form the deadliest bowling pair since Marshall and
> Roberts. Also, neglecting Graham Hick's small and insignificant test
> failures he stands head and shoulders above most batsmen in history.
> Applying the same logic to Ajay Sharma he is a much better batsman than
> Sachin Tendulkar.
>
> jai
And SRT is an utter failure outside the flat Asian tracks.
Cheers,
Vinay
rk_u...@yahoo.com
>Isn't it here that we not only play the bulk of our cricket and
>win
>the bulk of our matches? And just because its on Asian tracks
>can any
>Tom, Dick, and Harry win matches for India? If that was the
>case, we
>would have match winners in the Indian team by the droves. You
>make it
>sound as if winning matches is a walk in the park. Winning
>matches is
>not an easy job - not even on the flat Asian tracks. And to do
>it consistently year after year.
And why should not it be used for a bowler like Kumble.
It can easily proved, using your 'conventional' logic,
that Kumble is DA greatest indian spinner ever.
RK-
Takla Saand
That he arguably is, despite all the folks who
lack the moral turpentine to admit it.
How many Indian spinners have bucketed 300 in tests ?
How many have 10 in an innings ?
Kumble's dwarfed by Murali and Warne, but neither, to the best
of my ken, is an Indian spinner.
>
> RK-
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> Why don't you spend time and research our performances in whatever
> geographies you feel are great and churn out the numbers on who the
> match winners for India are? Frankly, I don't have the time and even
> if the number indicate something, you will always have enough
> ammunition to run them down on one pretext or the other. Thank you
> very much - I am not getting into this.
If u have this much wisdom, then why do u bother to
reply. I think so far u have replied atleast 30 of my
posts.
> Absolutely, he is one of the v. good batsman of his era - nothing
> more, nothing less. And this v. good category includes probably about
> 3 to 5 players max. What is special about him is that he is genius. I
> mean the kind of shots that he plays and the absolute ease that he
> does it with is something not everybody can do. Viv Richards too was
> similar in the audacious and breath taking shots he played.
VivRichards had quite a few defining series where he looked
like GOD and interestingly it was against top attacks. SRT also
had many great series and by a curious coincidence all were
against mediocre attacks.
In 12 yrs and 80+ tests, how many series SRT played like:-
Viv Richards vs Aus 1979: 140,96,76,72
SMG vs Pak 1978: 89,5,97,111,137
SMG vs Eng 1979: 61,69,42(out of team total of 96),59,78,13,221
VVSL vs Aus 2001:
M'rekar vs Pak 1989: 8,113,78,84,205,72,4
[ scores off my hat. may be wrong ]
Lemme answer this before u answer it wrongly: ZILCH.
And none of the above were against all time great attack
like WI. I realise that it is wrong to drag that WI attack
bcos SRT is never going to face that quality attack. So let
us not even talk about SRT playing like Amarnath in WI 1983
or Border in 1984.
SRT hasn't failed badly in any series like the batsman above
had in many series. But he never had any great series either.
12 yrs and yet to have a great series, in India or abroad.
Does that tell something about him.
I am sorry, till SRT comes up with one defining series, he
will always remain what he is for me now:- A v.good batsman
with vastly overrated stats.
RK-
Sundar Subramanian
> SRT hasn't failed badly in any series like the batsman above
> had in many series. But he never had any great series either.
> 12 yrs and yet to have a great series, in India or abroad.
> Does that tell something about him.
>
> I am sorry, till SRT comes up with one defining series, he
> will always remain what he is for me now:- A v.good batsman
> with vastly overrated stats.
>
Interesting. Seriously. What you are looking for is that purple patch
which, in your view, has eluded Sachin. So you conclude he is overrated. Am
I right?
Best,
Sundar
Sundar Subramanian
> Regarding Sundar, he seems like a very decent person who writes very
> good posts and seems like a person whom I'd like to be friends with.
Thanks, Vinay. Me too.
Best,
Sundar
Sundar Subramanian
> That he arguably is, despite all the folks who
> lack the moral turpentine to admit it.
> How many Indian spinners have bucketed 300 in tests ?
> How many have 10 in an innings ?
> Kumble's dwarfed by Murali and Warne, but neither, to the best
> of my ken, is an Indian spinner.
Hey! :-) Missed reading many of your earlier posts! Now know who you are
thanks to RK.
Best,
Sundar
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> Interesting. Seriously. What you are looking for is that purple patch
> which, in your view, has eluded Sachin. So you conclude he is overrated. Am
> I right?
Anything wrong in this.
Isn't Warne considered overrated by many for the same reason:
failure against spin strong countries like India.
Why can't we apply the same against SRT, though SRT hasn't
failed against good attacks the way Warne has failed.
He is yet to have one series against *full blown* attack of
RSA/PAK/AUS in which he avged > 60. All great players
have at least few series in which they murder the attack.
Our man has none.
vs Pak 1989 avg in mid 30s
vs Aus 1991-92 avg in high 40s
vs RSA 1996 at home avg in low 30s
vs RSA 1997 avg in mid 40s
vs Pak 1999 at home avg in high 20s
vs Aus 1999-2000 avg in high 40s
vs RSA 2000 at home avg in high 30s
vs Aus 2001 avg just short of 60
vs RSA 2001 avg in low 40s
That's 9 series.
Before the Aus 2001 series I had a bet with a rscer
that SRT will score atleast 2 100s and couple of 50s.
I was very confident too that I will win. SRT had a
good series, but still it fell short of being a great
series. VVSL had one.
RK-
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> vs Aus 2001 avg just short of 60
avg just above 50.
Rk-
Sundar Subramanian
> Isn't Warne considered overrated by many for the same reason:
> failure against spin strong countries like India.
Comparison strictly invalid. Sachin never failed. He may not have performed to
your high expectations. If you want to make a big deal of a two-Test series
(against Pak) then go ahead.
> Why can't we apply the same against SRT, though SRT hasn't
> failed against good attacks the way Warne has failed.
There! So the argument ceases here.
> He is yet to have one series against *full blown* attack of
> RSA/PAK/AUS in which he avged > 60. All great players
Series involving how many Tests?
> have at least few series in which they murder the attack.
Examples?
> Our man has none.
>
> vs Pak 1989 avg in mid 30s
Making a big deal of a 16 year old's debut series.
> vs Aus 1991-92 avg in high 40s
> vs RSA 1996 at home avg in low 30s
> vs RSA 1997 avg in mid 40s
> vs Pak 1999 at home avg in high 20s
> vs Aus 1999-2000 avg in high 40s
> vs RSA 2000 at home avg in high 30s
> vs Aus 2001 avg just short of 60
> vs RSA 2001 avg in low 40s
>
> That's 9 series.
Did you omit WI 1996-97? What was his average against them?
> Before the Aus 2001 series I had a bet with a rscer
> that SRT will score atleast 2 100s and couple of 50s.
He scored two fifties and one century in five innings. Good show.
> I was very confident too that I will win. SRT had a
> good series, but still it fell short of being a great
> series.
In your opinion.
> VVSL had one.
Agreed. Don't know how this is relevant though. Your statement: "All great
players have at least few series in which they murder the attack". Don't see why
this observation should preclude a batsman at large from coming up with a superb
performance.
Best,
Sundar
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> Comparison strictly invalid. Sachin never failed. He may not have performed to
> your high expectations. If you want to make a big deal of a two-Test series
> (against Pak) then go ahead.
If u want to wiggle out by raising a technical issue then go
ahead. That series with pak, for all practical purpose, was a 3
test series. Just to refresh, his scores were 0,136,6,29,0,9.
Good isn't it.
> Series involving how many Tests?
A better question will be, how many series
has it happened. Just to make it easy for you, so that you
don't have to scroll down and count it: 9 series.
>>have at least few series in which they murder the attack.
>>
>
> Examples?
I have already quoted. Read my reply to Vinay.
> Making a big deal of a 16 year old's debut series.
You didn't proivde an excuse for the other 8 series mentioned
below.
>>vs Aus 1991-92 avg in high 40s
>>vs RSA 1996 at home avg in low 30s
>>vs RSA 1997 avg in mid 40s
>>vs Pak 1999 at home avg in high 20s
>>vs Aus 1999-2000 avg in high 40s
>>vs RSA 2000 at home avg in high 30s
>>vs Aus 2001 avg just short of 60
>>vs RSA 2001 avg in low 40s
> Did you omit WI 1996-97? What was his average against them?
OK. That still is 9-1.
> He scored two fifties and one century in five innings. Good show.
Obviously 17 is not to be included as Sundarraman feels
that it was not a legitimate delivery. It will be better
if Wisden and ICC erases it from the scorecard.
>>I was very confident too that I will win. SRT had a
>>good series, but still it fell short of being a great
>>series.
>>
>
> In your opinion.
Sir,
my standards are not as high as yours. When I will match
ur standards, I will consider an avg of just 50 as a
great series (mind you we are talking about great series).
> Agreed. Don't know how this is relevant though. Your statement: "All great
> players have at least few series in which they murder the attack". Don't see why
> this observation should preclude a batsman at large from coming up with a superb
> performance.
reference to VVSL was to make it clear that SRT is yet to
come up with one series as good as VVSL's series, against
good attack.
RK-
rk_u...@yahoo.com
>>All great players
>>have at least few series in which they murder the attack.
>>
>
> Examples?
One batsman scored this against all time great WI
attack in 1984: 5,58, 98*,100*, 8,40, 98,9, 12,60
name of the batsman: Alan Robert Border.
IIRc his avg was > 70. Terrific series.
That 98* and 100* was in the same test where he
and the last batsman batted for ~2 hrs (yes 2 hrs)
to save the match.
Let SRT come up with one series as good as above,
even though he is not going to face an attack
even 70% as good as that WI attack.
As of now, I rate ARB > SRT in test cricket.
To hell with beauty. ARB was one heck of a ugly
batsman, but second to none in greatness.
RK-
Vinay Santurkar
>
> If u want to wiggle out by raising a technical issue then go
> ahead. That series with pak, for all practical purpose, was a 3
> test series. Just to refresh, his scores were 0,136,6,29,0,9.
> Good isn't it.
All Sachin's great series are run down under the pretext that they are
on flat tracks and/or against crap attacks. Once one adopts such a
stance, even God cannot please you.
Using your own logic, the 2 examples of great series of SMG that you
have given can be similarly discounted:
Pak 77/78 - dead wickets in Pakistan in which all matches would have
been drawn without Pakistan's heriocs in the last 2 matches. And a
mediocre attack comprising an emerging Imran and over the hill
Sarfraz.
Eng 81/82 - mediocre Eng attack.
If your God was so great, why didn't he have his break out series
against Aus in 81/82, NZ 81/82, or WI 82/83?
> >>vs Aus 1991-92 avg in high 40s
Including a 148 NO and 114 on a quick Perth wicket at the age of 18
years. But not good enuf for you is it?
> >>vs Aus 2001 avg just short of 60
Including 1 great 100 when everybody was falling like 9 pins, 2
fifties, and one near fifty. And at least 2 controversial dismissals.
And when all the remaining batsmen averages less than 30. But not good
enuf for you is it?
> >>vs RSA 2001 avg in low 40s
season 2001/02 2 4 1 193 155 22* 15 64.33
Obviously the third test which was unofficial has to be included as RK
feels that SRT has not done well and should be included. It will be
better if Wisden and ICC adds the unofficial third test to its
scoraecards.
>
> > Did you omit WI 1996-97? What was his average against them?
>
>
> OK. That still is 9-1.
Don't be so generous. It's still 10-0. What did SRT do that was
exceptional in 1996-97? In fact you are really be patronizing by
calling SRT a v. good batsman. Based on the case you have presented,
he is a mediocre to good batsman at best.
> Sir,
>
> my standards are not as high as yours. When I will match
> ur standards, I will consider an avg of just 50 as a
> great series (mind you we are talking about great series).
Your standards vary depending on your likes and dislikes. It's like a
moving bar in a high jump competition - lowered for the favorites and
raised for the pet hates. For people like SRT, the bar is set at 5 mts
and they are expected to clear it with ease.
>
> reference to VVSL was to make it clear that SRT is yet to
> come up with one series as good as VVSL's series, against
> good attack.
>
> RK-
Wasn't VVSL's innings/series on flat tracks? Yet another example of
your double standards. If SRT has a great test series or great ODI
performances in India its disregarded because its on flat tracks. Have
you seen his two breath taking innings in Sharjah against Aus? But
that is not given an credit even for ODIs beause its on flat tracks
and its a walk in the park to bat on flat tracks. And one good series
as per your definition is all it takes to be qualified as great by
your reverred standards. It's ok if you crap in all the remaining
matches before and after.
Cheers,
Vinay
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> All Sachin's great series are run down under the pretext that they are
> on flat tracks and/or against crap attacks. Once one adopts such a
> stance, even God cannot please you.
All of SRT's great series have been flat tracks *and* not so great
attack. The keyword is *and*. This has been my main beef with SRT.
Yes VVSL's 281 against Aus was on a flat track, but the attack
was great. Why couldn't SRT come up with 281, eh? Oops I forgot.
He wants both the conditions to be satisfied for a 70+ avg
series. Now don't gargle ur mouth with poison. Look at his
career stats first. Why is that he never has problem having
a great series against NZ/Eng/Zim/Lanka at home. A series
against Pak, RSA, Aus and the avg dips to sub 50. In fact
mostly close to 40.
> Pak 77/78 - dead wickets in Pakistan in which all matches would have
> been drawn without Pakistan's heriocs in the last 2 matches. And a
> mediocre attack comprising an emerging Imran and over the hill
> Sarfraz.
Over the hill Sarfraz took 17 wkts.
Mediocre Imran took 14 wkts.
Hmm interesting.
If SMG had played like SRT against them, then it would have
0-3 whitewash and that too by an innings every match.
Now why I include that series. Someone in rsc wrote this:-
"Any indian will admit that playing against Pakistan is
toughest bcos of the pressure". Do u remember who wrote
this. It was you.
SRT couldn't handle Pak bowling with over the hill
Akram in 1999 and that too at home, while having
the benefit of home + neutral umpire. Just to irritate
you, this is what he scored: 0,136,6,29,0,9.[Oh boy
I just love mentioning the score again and again].
He completely crapped
in batting when all India required was few good
30s/40s to win the Chennai and Kolkata test.
What his pimps talk is 136 [ great knock BTW ]
and his bizarre dismissal in the Kolkata test.
What they don't talk [ is it surprising] is that
he scored DUCK in the first inngs of both the
test. Our bowlers did a great job of restricting
Pak to a modest/poor score of 235 and 186. Our
batmen messed it up and failed to build a substantial
match winning lead, thanks to BAIDA by ur GOD.
SMG's 1978 series was in Pakistan with the legendary duo
of Shakoor Rana and Khizar Haiyat. Given that, a score
of 89,5,97, 111 and 137 is 1000 times better than
SRT's spineless batting against Pak.
> Eng 81/82 - mediocre Eng attack.
Do u even read other's post. Or are u blind also.
when did I include 1981/82 series, if u are referring
to the Fletcher Series at home.
> Including a 148 NO and 114 on a quick Perth wicket at the age of 18
> years. But not good enuf for you is it?
More proof that u don't read. That was a fine series. When
did I deny this.
But this thread is about one *great* series of SRT
against good attack, regardless of home or away.
1991 series vs Aus may be a great series for you,
but not for me. 7 out of 9 inngs he flunked.
He showed his class in that 114 and by the time the
series ended, it became evident
that he was India's best batsman.
> Including 1 great 100 when everybody was falling like 9 pins
RD scored 81 and VVSL 65. Which match are u talking about.
SRT was terrific in the Mumbai test.
Again that was a good series for SRT. No doubt about it.
But great series???
> And at least 2 controversial dismissals.
All of SRT's dismissals are controversial. Happy?
At least I have never offered this excuse for SMG.
> season 2001/02 2 4 1 193 155 22* 15 64.33
>
> Obviously the third test which was unofficial has to be included as RK
> feels that SRT has not done well and should be included. It will be
> better if Wisden and ICC adds the unofficial third test to its
> scoraecards.
I knew this point would be raised. May be u are right. We should
exclude 3rd test. I also agree with you that had he scored well
in that 'unofficial' test, we should pressurise ICC to declare it official.
His batting against RSA in that series: 155,15,1,22*,27,40.
Obviously a great series for SRT. What was I thinking?
> Wasn't VVSL's innings/series on flat tracks? Yet another example of
> your double standards. If SRT has a great test series or great ODI
> performances in India its disregarded because its on flat tracks. Have
> you seen his two breath taking innings in Sharjah against Aus? But
> that is not given an credit even for ODIs beause its on flat tracks
NO NO NO. I am not discrediting it bcos of flat track. It was bcos
it was flat track *plus* raddi attack.
SRT scores against Pakistan in Sharjah:
20,52*,49,0,73,24,4,1,118,3,11,10.
That 118 was against the might attack of Attar-U-Reham, Aquib Javed
and Bekar Younis.
Against RSA on the same ground:-
2,17,57,5,39.
Wonderful batting isn't it.
RK-
Gafoor
<rk_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C6D1D04...@yahoo.com...
> > Pak 77/78 - dead wickets in Pakistan in which all matches would
have
> > been drawn without Pakistan's heriocs in the last 2 matches. And
a
> > mediocre attack comprising an emerging Imran and over the hill
> > Sarfraz.
>
>
> Over the hill Sarfraz took 17 wkts.
> Mediocre Imran took 14 wkts.
> Hmm interesting.
If that is the criteria,WI in India 94
should also be considered.
Walsh & Benjamin 17 wkts each. So tougher than the 77/78 Pak
series.
India in England 96
Lewis 15 wkts, Mulally 12 wkts & Cork 10 wkts.
SMG against the great WI bowling attack of Holder, Shillingford,
Noreiga
- Average 154
SMG against the mediocre attack of Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Garner.
- Average 30.
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> If that is the criteria,WI in India 94
> should also be considered.
> Walsh & Benjamin 17 wkts each. So tougher than the 77/78 Pak
> series.
Of course u are right.
playing against Pakistan in Pakistan with their umpires =
playing against mediocre WI attack in India.
what was I thinking?
RK-
Gafoor
news:3C6C7753...@yahoo.com...
> Sundar Subramanian wrote:
>
> >>All great players
> >>have at least few series in which they murder the attack.
> >>
> >
> > Examples?
>
> One batsman scored this against all time great WI
> attack in 1984: 5,58, 98*,100*, 8,40, 98,9, 12,60
Another great batsman scored this against the all time great WI
attack
20,0, 1, 32, 147*, 2, 19, 18, 1
Do note that the 147* was in a rained out dead match.
The same batsman also did the following in England 71
4,53, 57, 24, 6, 0
(Eknath Solkar averaged 70 in this series & Ajit Wadekar, Engineer,
GRV & Sardesai also did better than the said batsman.)
Then in the return series played at home
scored
12, 8, 18, 2, 20, 0*, 69, 24, 4, 67
Then in 80/81 Australia (Lillee & Gang)
0,10, 23, 5, 10,70
Then in NZ 80/81 (Hadlee)
23, 12, 53, 5, 33
I could go on & on about this batsman.
Gafoor
<rk_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C6D5257...@yahoo.com...
Your point was that it was a good attack because
Imran took 17 wkts & SN took 14.
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> Your point was that it was a good attack because
> Imran took 17 wkts & SN took 14.
and his point was that SN was over the hill and Imran was
crap. Based on what? I didn't see u commenting on that.
My main point was it was a great series against tough
opposition. Pak bowling was v.good at that time. Add
to that it was played in Pak with their umpires.
Some facts:-
before 1978 series Imran had taken 12 wkts in the Syndey
test to beat Aus.
He took 25 wkts in the series against WI in 1977.
SN took a 9fer in 1979 after our series.
RK-
rk_u...@yahoo.com
<drums rolling>
by pointing out the failures of SMG, it is proved
that SRT had at least one great series against
quality attack.
<end drums rolling>
I have already mentioned that Border/SMG/IVAR had
many failures too. But, they had few great series
to talk about. SRT HAS NONE SO FAR. Hard to
comprehend or hard to digest.
One quick question:
Two players in a series:-
player A 38,42
38,42,
38,42 avg(40)
player B 2,56,
5,24,
100,50 avg(42)
Answer this honestly: who played played better and
why?
RK-
Sundar Subramanian
replies to your observations. Read on. (I was not able to see your reply
in the usual way, so have to resort to this).
RK: "If u want to wiggle out by raising a technical issue then go
ahead. That series with pak, for all practical purpose, was a 3
test series. Just to refresh, his scores were 0,136,6,29,0,9.
Good isn't it."
My reply: He scored 171 runs in 5 innings @ 35 odd. Not a failure by any
standards. So you may cut out the comparison with Warne.
To my query > Series involving how many Tests?
RK: "A better question will be, how many series
has it happened. Just to make it easy for you, so that you
don't have to scroll down and count it: 9 series."
My reply: So your strategy is to ask the question on my behalf and then
answer it yourself? Nice. No discussion necessary then. Please reply to
my question, if you can, without trying to mind-read (this is becoming a
terrible problem with you). My question is this: How do you define
*your* Series? Would two constitute a series? Or three? Or four? Or
five? The reason I am asking should be crystal. Sachin has played just
two five-Test series, one four-Test series (his debut series, I
believe), and several three and two-Test series. Now look at your
examples in this light to see where I am getting. Out of the two
five-Test series you conveniently omitted one. For your information,
Sachin's average in that series was 58 with 3 fifties in six innings
(with one "not out"). Bowlers: Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, and Rose. Refer
to their career averages (better than Botham, Willis, etc.) before you
write a rebuttal.
I see no need to reply to your other sarcastic remarks. Vinay has done
the needful.
RK: "One batsman scored this against all time great WI
attack in 1984: 5,58, 98*,100*, 8,40, 98,9, 12,60
name of the batsman: Alan Robert Border."
My reply: Two hundreds and three fifties in 10 innings. How different is
one hundred and two fifties in four innings (in one case) or five
innings (another case)? In both cases the bowlers were from the battery
of McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, and Fleming.
RK: "IIRc his avg was > 70. Terrific series.
That 98* and 100* was in the same test where he
and the last batsman batted for ~2 hrs (yes 2 hrs)
to save the match."
My reply: In a FIVE TEST series, mind you. Give Sachin FIVE TESTS time
and again and see how he fares. Make your observations on the available
data, not data that you dream about.
RK: Let SRT come up with one series as good as above,
even though he is not going to face an attack
even 70% as good as that WI attack.
My reply: Let SRT play FIVE TESTS consistently like the blokes in the
seventies did and then we will talk. Let Sachin PLAY an attack that is
like the one you mentioned above and then we will talk. Until then hold
your flames. Pointless to castigate a player just because you have your
pet biases that you profess as theories.
RK: As of now, I rate ARB > SRT in test cricket.
To hell with beauty. ARB was one heck of a ugly
batsman, but second to none in greatness.
My reply: Irrelevant to the discussion. Please do not digress. Thanks.
Best,
Sundar
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> My reply: He scored 171 runs in 5 innings @ 35 odd. Not a failure by any
> standards. So you may cut out the comparison with Warne.
again talking like a stuck record. We are talking about
having a great series.
I consider that series as a failure. U may not.
However can u say he had a good series? Don't wiggle out.
> My reply: So your strategy is to ask the question on my behalf and then
> answer it yourself? Nice. No discussion necessary then. Please reply to
> my question, if you can, without trying to mind-read (this is becoming a
> terrible problem with you).
this is ur fav excuse in rsc many years. I consider this 3 tests
series or 5 tests series as irrelvant.
Wait a minute. It is relevant. Two of SMG's biggest failures
was in a 3 test series (vs Aus and NZ in 1981). May be, had it
been a 5 test series he would have fared much better. I like
it. I like it.
SRT avged some 80 odd against Aus in 1998. How about this. I
think had he played 5 tests his scores would have been
4,155*,65,177,34,2,8,5,19.
HO HO HO.
Psssssssssss. Sound of air coming out.
To quote a Hindi adage "likhne ko kya hain, kuch bhee likh do".
[ what is there to write, u can write anything ]
>My question is this: How do you define
> *your* Series? Would two constitute a series? Or three? Or four? Or
> five? The reason I am asking should be crystal.
A series is a series. I don't have a different yardstick
for a 3 test series as compared to 5 test series.
> Out of the two
> five-Test series you conveniently omitted one. For your information,
> Sachin's average in that series was 58 with 3 fifties in six innings
> (with one "not out"). Bowlers: Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, and Rose. Refer
> to their career averages (better than Botham, Willis, etc.) before you
> write a rebuttal.
ho ho ho. More than the career avg it would be better to see what
the bowlers were at *that* time.
This is like saying that Roberts was a crap bowler in 1974
bcos the roberts I saw in 1983 was maha raddi.
In 1979 Botham was far ahead of Walsh, Bishop and Rose at any
time of their career. Not Ambrose.
Some unpalatable stats for you:-
Botham till 1981 Ashes series took 202 wkts in 41 tests
at an avg of 21.20. SRT scores against Pollock, his
fans ejacu**e. SMG scored magnificently against Botham
of 1979 [ > pollock at that time ], it is not enuf.
unlike SRT SMG scored heavily in 1979.
which series against RSA did SRT score heavily.
Few good knocks and shitting rest of the time.
Willis till 1979 was avg'ing 24 in 50 matches. Do u want
me to believe that Bishop/Rose and Walsh were significantly
better than Willis/Botham of 1979. Dream on dude.
Does it make any sense to u, assuming u can comprehend it
in the first place.
> I see no need to reply to your other sarcastic remarks. Vinay has done
> the needful.
Yup. Ur new best friend has done a good job of offering
pathetic excuses.
> My reply: Two hundreds and three fifties in 10 innings. How different is
> one hundred and two fifties in four innings (in one case) or five
> innings (another case)? In both cases the bowlers were from the battery
> of McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, and Fleming.
did SRT avg 74 in any series against Aus
with full attack. The keyword is full.
Did he have a match like 98* and 100*.
> My reply: In a FIVE TEST series, mind you. Give Sachin FIVE TESTS time
> and again and see how he fares. Make your observations on the available
> data, not data that you dream about.
OH I see. there is a scientific evidence that batsman tend to
bat better in a 5 test series.
Why this 5 tests crap doesn't apply when SRT plays
ENg/NZ/Lanka/ZIM/B'desh and soon Kenya. Can u answer me.
This thread is about SRT not having a single great series,
not whether he flopped in one partiuclar series. Why do
u/Vinay have to digress.
RK-
Jai Natarajan
3 test thing is a very specious argument in defense of SRT.
whole world and their uncle knows India should have 5 tests series, warm up
games etc. in order to do their best. But that is not the reality. The
reality is more and more, 2 or 3 tests series with little warmup is becoming
the norm. What is the point of hypothesising about performance in 5 series
when the batsman is spending his career playing 3 series'. That way, we can
say poor Kumble, he is awesome on uncovered wickets but unfortunately he's
not getting a chance to play on them these days.
Any player can only aim to play well in the prevailing circumstance of his
time. That means doing well in 3 fers, 2 fers, landing in Wi and playing a
test 2 days later etc., whatever it is.
<general rants>
One problem I really have with Sachin is he rarely plays two good innings in
a match or in a row, let alone a mega series. No Indian batsman since the
days of Amarnath and SMG had a mega series until VVSL last year. Even
visitors like Flower, Hayden, Adams etc. have a mega series which our guys
never do on tour.It's hard to understand. Etiher you're in form or not. When
in form, you should be pretty awesome over 3-4 matches and really dominate
everything. Look at Lara, Langer, Kallis, Tresco etc. who really know how to
put the boot in when times are good. Our batsmen have no such thing as
extended form in tests. They can play scintillating one day, then scratch
around the next couple of innings.
Another thing is, batting more than 3 sessions is rare. What is all this BS
about getting out to a "tired stroke" at the end of a day on 105 or
something (not aimed specifically at SRT but at all our guys)?
I admire SCG for his honesty. When out of form, he sincerely fails against
everyone :) Not like Dravid, who goes out of form when Donald visits, "gets
back in form" when Zim comes, gets out of form when he goes to SA, will now
"get back in form" v/s Zim etc.
jai
<rk_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3C6DA8A0...@yahoo.com...
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> jai
Good post.
what u have done to Sundar-Kant and Vinay-lal (rsc version
of Laxmikant-Pyarelal) is that u have fed them bananas
with needles inside ( quoting a tamil saying).
this thread is closed from my side.
warm regards.
RK-
Sundar Subramanian
> actually staying out of the general arguments here, I have to say the 5 v/s
> 3 test thing is a very specious argument in defense of SRT.
Not at all.
> whole world and their uncle knows India should have 5 tests series, warm up
> games etc. in order to do their best. But that is not the reality. The
> reality is more and more, 2 or 3 tests series with little warmup is becoming
> the norm. What is the point of hypothesising about performance in 5 series
> when the batsman is spending his career playing 3 series'.
The reality is that someone (not you) hasn't learned to stop hypothesizing about
the performance of Sachin against bowlers of the eighties. What is your say in
that matter? All I am saying is that if you want to compare him with good
players of the past era give him the same rope. He has done well in the chances
he has got. If X says that he would have come a cropper against bowling team Y
IF HE FACED THEM, then Z can also say that he would have performed admirably IF
HE WERE EXPOSED to the same situations (tangible as well as intangible) over a
period of time. Both are conjecturing. It is not as if it is X's born right to
exercize pure conjecture and pass it off as truth. Either look at the data and
analyze properly or be ready to get a dose of your (not you) own medicine. Do
you get my point?
> Any player can only aim to play well in the prevailing circumstance of his
> time. That means doing well in 3 fers, 2 fers, landing in Wi and playing a
> test 2 days later etc., whatever it is.
Precisely. Then why compare him with players who experienced different
prevailing circumstances? One has to adjust for that discrepancy before one
starts mouthing off (not you, Jai, you are a perfectly reasonable person. I
enjoy reading your posts.).
> <general rants>
> One problem I really have with Sachin is he rarely plays two good innings in
> a match or in a row, let alone a mega series. No Indian batsman since the
> days of Amarnath and SMG had a mega series until VVSL last year. Even
I have a problem with your statement. The mega series of the past SHOULD NOT be
compared with present series, UNLESS you adjust for the discrepancies.
Furthermore, it is possible that a batsman at large may come up with a
scintillating performance in a random series. If the batsman's stupendous
performances become repetitive, there will be a strong case for using his
performance as a benchmark for lowering the hype of a second batsman (if the
latter does not measure up to the first one's performance, that is). But it is
dangerous to conclude so based on one random realization.
If X is a great player, he will murder a good attack some time (Copyright RK).
It follows that any Y who murders a good attack at one time need not be a great
player. I agree that if one were to accept RK's gospel, then X cannot be a great
player unless he murders a good attack some time. The problem is that it is very
difficult to arrive at a consensus as to what entails a "good" attack, "murder"
etc. Does murder mean gritting it out or does it mean smashing the opposition?
Does it mean an average of 70 plus (so that 69 is not murder!), or does it mean
three hundreds and 2 fifties in certain innings (which of course, also adds to
the chaos; is six innings comparable to ten innings?) as opposed to two hundreds
and two fifties. These are gray areas.
> visitors like Flower, Hayden, Adams etc. have a mega series which our guys
> never do on tour.It's hard to understand. Etiher you're in form or not. When
> in form, you should be pretty awesome over 3-4 matches and really dominate
> everything. Look at Lara, Langer, Kallis, Tresco etc. who really know how to
> put the boot in when times are good. Our batsmen have no such thing as
> extended form in tests. They can play scintillating one day, then scratch
> around the next couple of innings.
As far as I can say it is a problem of temperament re Sachin. Same with Laxman.
No comments about others.
> Another thing is, batting more than 3 sessions is rare. What is all this BS
> about getting out to a "tired stroke" at the end of a day on 105 or
> something (not aimed specifically at SRT but at all our guys)?
Changing times. Too many ODI's.
> I admire SCG for his honesty. When out of form, he sincerely fails against
> everyone :) Not like Dravid, who goes out of form when Donald visits, "gets
> back in form" when Zim comes, gets out of form when he goes to SA, will now
> "get back in form" v/s Zim etc.
Whatever. Sourav MUST be dropped from Tests. Last I heard of Dravid, he was
smacking his lips thinking about the Zimbabwe attack on Indian pitches :-)
Best,
Sundar
Sundar Subramanian
> again talking like a stuck record. We are talking about
> having a great series.
I am sure you are talking about yourself, re the "stuck record" thing.
> I consider that series as a failure. U may not.
>
> However can u say he had a good series? Don't wiggle out.
Are you for real? *You* compared Sachin with a failed bowler (against India),
so I merely pointed out that the comparison was inappropriate (by giving the
average of 35 which is not a failure).
> this is ur fav excuse in rsc many years. I consider this 3 tests
> series or 5 tests series as irrelvant.
I consider it as relevant.
> Wait a minute. It is relevant. Two of SMG's biggest failures
> was in a 3 test series (vs Aus and NZ in 1981). May be, had it
> been a 5 test series he would have fared much better. I like
> it. I like it.
This is irrelevant. I did not bring SMG's failures into the discussion. First
learn to focus on arguing properly rather than being diffuse.
> SRT avged some 80 odd against Aus in 1998. How about this. I
> think had he played 5 tests his scores would have been
> 4,155*,65,177,34,2,8,5,19.
> HO HO HO.
> Psssssssssss. Sound of air coming out.
In your present condition, you are advised not to eat much lentils. It is
getting difficult to breath, Sangoodhi Linganna :-)
> To quote a Hindi adage "likhne ko kya hain, kuch bhee likh do".
> [ what is there to write, u can write anything ]
Practice what you preach first. Then talk.
> A series is a series. I don't have a different yardstick
> for a 3 test series as compared to 5 test series.
I have.
> ho ho ho. More than the career avg it would be better to see what
> the bowlers were at *that* time.
Yes at that time, Ambrose was better than Botham, Walsh was equal to Willis.
Feel free to vent more of your frustration with a veneer of "ho ho ho".
> This is like saying that Roberts was a crap bowler in 1974
> bcos the roberts I saw in 1983 was maha raddi.
Read above.
> In 1979 Botham was far ahead of Walsh, Bishop and Rose at any
> time of their career. Not Ambrose.
Precisely what I said also. If you look at the bowling combo of 1979 and 1997,
you can at best say that they were of equal strength (I am in a generous
mood). So why omit Sachin's average against WI? Eat it for breakfast: Sachin
had three fifties in five completed innings.
> Some unpalatable stats for you:-
>
> Botham till 1981 Ashes series took 202 wkts in 41 tests
> at an avg of 21.20. SRT scores against Pollock, his
> fans ejacu**e. SMG scored magnificently against Botham
> of 1979 [ > pollock at that time ], it is not enuf.
> unlike SRT SMG scored heavily in 1979.
In a four-Test series. Sachin played a two-Test series against Pollock.
> which series against RSA did SRT score heavily.
> Few good knocks and shitting rest of the time.
So? He scored well against Australia and WI. Did every batsman you consider
great play well against EVERY team?
> Willis till 1979 was avg'ing 24 in 50 matches. Do u want
> me to believe that Bishop/Rose and Walsh were significantly
> better than Willis/Botham of 1979. Dream on dude.
You dream on dude. At best they were of the same strength as Ambrose and co in
1996-97. So stop your mindless drivel aka "Sachin bashing".
> Does it make any sense to u, assuming u can comprehend it
> in the first place.
Do *you* have any sense at all? Don't talk about comprehension ability when
you possess none of it.
> Yup. Ur new best friend has done a good job of offering
> pathetic excuses.
Don't mind-read. About excuses being pathetic, its your opinion.
> did SRT avg 74 in any series against Aus
> with full attack. The keyword is full.
>
> Did he have a match like 98* and 100*.
Did he play FIVE TESTS REPEATEDLY like players of yester years?
> OH I see. there is a scientific evidence that batsman tend to
> bat better in a 5 test series.
No, no, there is scientific evidence only in *your* rantings.
> Why this 5 tests crap doesn't apply when SRT plays
> ENg/NZ/Lanka/ZIM/B'desh and soon Kenya. Can u answer me.
Because you did not list these in the first instance. You have a short memory
too, in addition to not being able to focus properly.
> This thread is about SRT not having a single great series,
> not whether he flopped in one partiuclar series. Why do
> u/Vinay have to digress.
We did? And you didn't?
Best,
Sundar
Amol Cricketwallah
Heh. Had skipped this thread entirely apart from the part I played in it
over the past few days. Just read a couple of messages tonight while
following the BPXI game, and found them funny, so thought I'd respond :-)
>
> > Out of the two
> > five-Test series you conveniently omitted one. For your information,
> > Sachin's average in that series was 58 with 3 fifties in six innings
> > (with one "not out"). Bowlers: Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, and Rose. Refer
> > to their career averages (better than Botham, Willis, etc.) before you
> > write a rebuttal.
>
>
> ho ho ho. More than the career avg it would be better to see what
> the bowlers were at *that* time.
>
Fine. Then youre not going by pure stats, are you? I dont think you
should, anyway - you go by judgement, not just numbers IMHO.
And frankly, if you really think an attack of Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop
was not as good as Botham and Willis, I dont know what youre thinking -
you must just have huge respect for all 70s cricket and none for all
90s cricket :-) If you want, ask any England fans which combination was
superior, at any time over their careers - heck, ask them if they think
Botham and Willis at their peak were as good as just Ambrose and Walsh
even in 2000 on the verge of their retirements (forget 1997, a full
3 years earlier, when SRT played them). Iam fairly sure what answer you'll
get from a great majority :-)
> This is like saying that Roberts was a crap bowler in 1974
> bcos the roberts I saw in 1983 was maha raddi.
>
Oh BTW, when Roberts came to India in 1974, he had played only 1 test
in his career, for 3 wickets at 43.33. It was the Indian batsmen of
1974 who *made* him a great bowler - his average was down to 19 by
the end of the India tour :-)
So how good was Roberts, anyway? If youre going by stats, it might be
pointed out that by the time Roberts had played 25 tests in his career
(including that 5-test blitz against India), his bowling average had
stabilized at about 25 runs per wicket (this was by early 1977, BTW,
not exactly very late in his career). In April 1977, after 25 tests and
at age 26, his career average was 25.30. He retired in 1983 at age
33 after 47 tests, and his career average at the finish was 25.60
After 25 tests, the much maligned Courtney Walsh (he who, in combination
with the great Curtly himself, could not hold a candle to Botham/Willis :-)
... well, after 25 tests, Courtney Walsh's average was 25.17. When
he played against Sachin in India in 1994 (you know, that crap attack
which had only Walsh and Benjamin? :-) - at that stage he had 228 test
wickets at 25.8.
When Walsh played Sachin in 1997 in WI (as second banana in the attack
to Ambrose), he had 329 test wickets at 25.4.
> In 1979 Botham was far ahead of Walsh, Bishop and Rose at any
> time of their career. Not Ambrose.
>
Hah :-)
> Some unpalatable stats for you:-
>
> Botham till 1981 Ashes series took 202 wkts in 41 tests
> at an avg of 21.20. SRT scores against Pollock, his
> fans ejacu**e. SMG scored magnificently against Botham
> of 1979 [ > pollock at that time ], it is not enuf.
> unlike SRT SMG scored heavily in 1979.
Heh :-) May I point out that when SMG played Botham in 1979, he had
played 17 tests only? Yes, he had a good average - can we point out
a couple of possible reasons, BTW? :-)
First, Botham had played *two* series against a very poor NZ side early
in his career (and when I say poor, I mean poor - even Glenn Turner
didnt play in those series IIRC). He had also played 3 tests against
a crap Pakistan outfit at home (no Mushtaq Mohammad, no Zaheer Abbas,
no Majid Khan, no Asif Iqbal, no Imran Khan - Packer was going on,
you see :-). And then he had played 5 tests against Australia in the
Ashes series in Australia (and what an Australian side it was! No Greg
Chappell, no Ian Chappell, no Lillee, no Marsh, no Walters - Packer
was going on, you see :-)
So. Two series against weak NZ. Two series against Packer-less effective
2nd XI's. And that Botham (with good stats!) played against SMG in
1979 - with 80 odd wickets at a bowling average of 21.
Oh BTW, the side that SRT faced in 1997 in WI? It had Ambrose, about whom
I shall not even deign to make argument :-) It had Walsh, about whom I
have already made my argument above (ie Walsh not dissimilar to 1974's
Roberts, with stats ;-)
But there was, of course, a 3rd paceman in that 1997 side - Ian Bishop.
Ian Bishop, when he faced SRT in 1997, had 140 test wickets at an
average of 22.5, and a strike-rate far in excess of Botham's wildest
dreams (and an average, mind, that was superior to Bob Willis' in
1979 - Willis had about 170 wickets at 24 odd IIRC? :-)
BTW, 1979 might have been SMG's best series in England - but when did
it turn into a great series, anyway?
First test: England 633/5. Ind 297 ao(SMG 61 - 2 fifties in team),
Ind 253 ao (SMG 68 - 3 fifties in team).
Second test: India 96 ao (SMG 42 - no fifties). Eng 419/9. Ind 318/4
to force honorable draw (SMG 59, both Vishy and Vengy centuries)
Third test: Rain. Eng 270 ao on 4th evening. Ind 223/6, almost all
scored on final day (SMG 78 - 2 fifties in team).
Fourth test: Eng 305. Ind 202 (SMG 13 - one fifty in team). Eng 334/8d,
Ind 429/8 (SMG 221 - three fifties in team).
As far as I recall, the first test had no real heroes - 5 fifties
scored in all for India, our best bat got 2 of them. Not mindboggling.
Second test, clear heroes were Vishy and Vengy. Third test, clear hero
was rain :-) Fourth test, clear hero was SMG.
For a *best series in England*, it isnt that brilliant IMHO.
>
> Willis till 1979 was avg'ing 24 in 50 matches. Do u want
> me to believe that Bishop/Rose and Walsh were significantly
> better than Willis/Botham of 1979. Dream on dude.
>
Oh very nice. How does Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop/Rose suddenly become
Bishop/Rose/Walsh? :-)
My own opinion is that Ambrose/Walsh were by themselves much superior
to Willis/Botham, at any time in their career. When you have Ambrose/
Walsh/Bishop - it is not remotely comparable IMHO (and yes, I was a big
fan of Mike Hendrick, but I *still* think that :-)
>
> Did he have a match like 98* and 100*.
>
BTW, that was a brilliant match from Border - one of the great all-time
fights for survival.
But, if one might point out, that *was* Port of Spain Trinidad - pitches
were sort of more spin-oriented than out-and-out-pace there, usually. And
the game *was* rain-affected (Australia batted first and scored 255, but,
due to rain, their first innings was not completed till the morning of
the third day! And still Australia almost los the game :-) And the
Windies attack was Garner, Marshall, Wayne Daniel and Milton Small (this
was in 1984 - India had already seen Wayne Daniel in 1983, so most Indians
will remember what he was like by then, no longer quite the express
paceman he was in the mid-70s).
Finally, by the 5th day, the pitch was more spin-friendly than pace
friendly. When last-man Alderman joined Border, Australia were 24
runs ahead only, but Alderman made 21* off 69 balls and stayed till
the end, until a draw. But, on that last day, Marshall bowled 22
overs, Garner bowled 15 overs. And Vivian Richards bowled 25 overs,
and Larry Gomes bowled 27 overs.
Still, an awesome performance by Border - no two ways about that.
Sadiq [ who ranks Ambrose ahead of Roberts, Garner, Holding et al] Yusuf
>
> RK-
DW
> First, Botham had played *two* series against a very poor NZ side early
> in his career (and when I say poor, I mean poor - even Glenn Turner
> didnt play in those series IIRC). He had also played 3 tests against
> a crap Pakistan outfit at home (no Mushtaq Mohammad, no Zaheer Abbas,
> no Majid Khan, no Asif Iqbal, no Imran Khan - Packer was going on,
> you see :-). And then he had played 5 tests against Australia in the
> Ashes series in Australia (and what an Australian side it was! No Greg
> Chappell, no Ian Chappell, no Lillee, no Marsh, no Walters - Packer
> was going on, you see :-)
>
> So. Two series against weak NZ. Two series against Packer-less effective
> 2nd XI's.
Interesting points. IIRC those points have also been raised when putting
into context Brearley's god-like captaincy record (in addition to the
fact that he never captained against West Indies).
rk_u...@yahoo.com
>>In 1979 Botham was far ahead of Walsh, Bishop and Rose at any
>>time of their career. Not Ambrose.
>>
>>
>
> Hah :-)
>
>
>>Some unpalatable stats for you:-
>>
>>Botham till 1981 Ashes series took 202 wkts in 41 tests
>>at an avg of 21.20. SRT scores against Pollock, his
>>fans ejacu**e. SMG scored magnificently against Botham
>>of 1979 [ > pollock at that time ], it is not enuf.
>>unlike SRT SMG scored heavily in 1979.
>>
>
>
> Heh :-) May I point out that when SMG played Botham in 1979, he had
> played 17 tests only? Yes, he had a good average - can we point out
> a couple of possible reasons, BTW? :-)
I said Botham was a v.good bowler between 1977-81. So what is
this crap about till 1979 he had played only 17 tests.
He took next 100 in 22 tests.
Here is an old post of mine about Ian Botham's first 200 wkts.
==============================
From: srkr...@yahoo.com (srkr...@yahoo.com)
Subject: myth about botham's bowling
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
View: Complete Thread (61 articles) | Original Format
Date: 1998/12/12
One of the biggest myth in cricket is that during the best days
of Ian Botham his bowling figures was boosted by bowling to
packerised teams. Botham bashers forget that Botham took his
100th wicket in 19th test (1979) and 200th wkt in 41 test (1981).
Packer circus got over by WC 1979 and his second 100 was very
good (in 22 test).
Attached is Botham's bowling record from 1977 to 1982, which was
his best.
year country test wkts 5w 10w comments
==== ======= === ==== == === ========
1977 aus 2 10 2 - almost full aus
batting
greg chappel was
there
1977-78 nz 3 17 2 - it appears to be
full
nz side with
hadlee etc. Can
anyone confirm
this.
1978 pak 3 13 1 - weak batting,
only miandad
and wasim raja
1978 nz 3 24 3 1 looks like the
best nz side
1978-79 aus 6 23 - - against weak aus
packerised
side he bowled
badly instead
of taking tons
of wkt as BB's
tend to believe.
1979 ind 4 20 2 - full indian side
1979-80 aus 3 19 2 1 full aus side,
in aus
1980 ind 1 14 2 1 need i say more?
1980 wi 5 14 - - bad bowling.
1981 wi 4 15 - - bad bowling.
1981 aus 6 34 3 1 superb bowling
against aus
1981-82 ind 6 17 1 - bad bowling
except bombay
1982 lanka 1 3
1982 ind 3 9 1 bad bowling.
1982 pak 3 18 1 - v.good bowling
against pak
Total 54 249 20 4
If someone says that Botham did not perform well against WI,
there is a point. But to say that he bowled well only against
weak packerised batting is a blatant lie. Botham did well against
all teams (with or without packer) except WI. He did very well
against Aus both in batting and bowling. He bowled well against
India in 1979 and 1980. Bowled well against Pak in 1982.
Botham was something phenomenal in his first 5 years. No doubt
about it.
With this I have proved beyond doubt that all these stupid
allegations against botham is just a myth.
RK-
==============================================
Viewed in this context, why should I believe that Botham
was any worse than Walsh and Co (not Ambrose) in 1979,
unless u are trying to say that he improved after 1979.
>As far as I recall, the first test had no real heroes - 5 >fifties
>scored in all for India, our best bat got 2 of them. Not
>mindboggling.
>Second test, clear heroes were Vishy and Vengy. Third test,
>clear hero
>was rain [:-)] Fourth test, clear hero was SMG.
The same can be told about SRT's series in WI 1997.
Dravid batted better than him. Sidhu scored a double
100. VVSL and Jadega also scored 90+.
and here is some more about 1997 series:-
Ambrose took 10 wkts at 30.
Walsh took 4 wkts at 62
Sure sure. I have to believe that 1997 WI attack was
super great and our batsmen were too good to reduce
Walsh and Ambrose to such a pitiable state as mentioned
above. Indian batsmen, about whom u wrote such disparaging
comments earlier, suddenly batted like a champion in
that series.
Some Indian rscers say that the 1997
series was played on deadest track. Looking at the
'heroic' batting of Dravid and SRT, it sure looks one.
What could possibly be a reason for Ambrose/Walsh
bowling so horribly.
RK-
Sundar Subramanian
> Heh. Had skipped this thread entirely apart from the part I played in it
Just thought it will die its natural death, huh? :-) You were mistaken.
> over the past few days. Just read a couple of messages tonight while
> following the BPXI game, and found them funny, so thought I'd respond :-)
Good for you. And what a reply. Your rationale is quite compelling, I should
say.
> Fine. Then youre not going by pure stats, are you? I dont think you
That depends on the context and the likelihood of RK winning the argument!
> should, anyway - you go by judgement, not just numbers IMHO.
>
> And frankly, if you really think an attack of Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop
> was not as good as Botham and Willis, I dont know what youre thinking -
Neither do some others here, by all accounts! Welcome to the club, Sadiq.
> 90s cricket :-) If you want, ask any England fans which combination was
> superior, at any time over their careers - heck, ask them if they think
> Botham and Willis at their peak were as good as just Ambrose and Walsh
> even in 2000 on the verge of their retirements (forget 1997, a full
> 3 years earlier, when SRT played them). Iam fairly sure what answer you'll
> get from a great majority :-)
Not necessary. RK has given his judgment so it should be the gospel :-) It
matters only that Botham the *best* England bowler (in 1979) had an average of
22 odd at "that point of time", when SMG played well. It is unnecessary to
point out that the second best (leave alone the best) WI bowler in 1997 had a
comparable average "at that point of time" (Bishop, as you point out later),
when Sachin played well. Slam Sachin, discredit his scores against WI, slam him
more and, to complete the quota of mindless replies, add a few "ho ho ho" for
good measure. Others will accept yarns meekly as truth.
<Stuff about Roberts deleted>
<Further EXCELLENT stuff from Sadiq deleted>
Look at the series in Australia in 1999-2000. Sachin scored 2 fifties and one
hundred in six innings, in which he was robbed twice (the innings of 61 in the
first Test and the innings of 45 in the third test). He gritted it out in the
first and second Tests (two fifties and one hundred), and had started to take
apart McGrath with clinical precision in the third when the dreadful decision
came (first innings).
Look at the recent series against Australia in India. He had two terrific
fifties and one hundred, was very very unfortunate once (a hit rebounding off
the fielder's legs to Ponting), and was cruelly robbed in the last innings
(given out off an undeclared no ball).
All this against the BEST bowlers of recent times McGrath, Gillespie (and,
arguably, Lee).
Add to this, the series against the WI in 1996-'97 and you have three series in
which Sachin was brilliant. In a short series (the former two) you have no
chance to make a come back quickly. In a five-Test series, however, there are
more chances for a batsman of Sachin's ilk to re-assert after a couple of poor
scores (although in the latter one too, rain robbed much of the playing time).
Give the same rope you would give your favorites, I say. Objectivity demands
it.
Best,
Sundar
Sundar Subramanian
wickets fell? Sachin strode in at 11 for 2 (or was it 6 for 2?) and compiled a
wonderful ton. That innings, if not the Perth one in 1992, should have sealed
the argument concerning Sachin's ability to play pace on bouncy wickets.
Just wanted to add.
Best,
Sundar
rk_u...@yahoo.com
>>ho ho ho. More than the career avg it would be better to see what
>>the bowlers were at *that* time.
>>
>>
>
> Fine. Then youre not going by pure stats, are you? I dont think you
> should, anyway - you go by judgement, not just numbers IMHO.
what do u mean? I am sure u can explain it better unlike the
other responder to this thread, who is clueless about the
game, but writes good English.
I never said that Willis+Botham > Ambrose+Walsh. However
I am positive that in 1979 in England, Willis+Botham >> 1997
Ambrose+Walsh. If Amby/Walsh were so great then how did
they end up with such horrible figures against India in 1997.
Was it played on placid tracks.
Were Indian batsmen too good against them,
Specially Dravid.
Or they bowled badly.
>If you want, ask any England fans which combination was
>superior, at any time over their careers - heck, ask them if
>they think
>Botham and Willis at their peak were as good as just Ambrose
and >Walsh even in 2000 on the verge of their retirements
Bwaaaaaaahhhhhh. This is like saying that Kapil
bowled maginificently in NZ/Eng 1990 based on his showing in Aus
1992.
Could u just compare Botham/Willis bowling against us
in 1979 and Ambrose/Walsh bowling against us in 1997.
1979 Eng series
W: 3/69 and 1/45
B: 2/86 and 5/70
W: DNP
B: 5/35 and 1/80
W: 2/42
B: 0/30
W: 3/63 and 1/89
B: 4/55 and 3/97
1997 WI series
A: 0/35 and 0/7
W: 1/73 and 1/7
A: 5/87
W: 0/71
A: 2/74 and 3/36
W: DNP
A: 0/26
W: 1/27
A: 0/36
W: 1/62
Yeah baby yeah. A & W bowled better than B and W.
But then it is very difficult to rationalise with a person
who thinks Agarkar is talented and Kambli is a talented
stroke player.
RK-
Vinay Santurkar
> Vinay Santurkar wrote:
>
> All of SRT's great series have been flat tracks *and* not so great
> attack. The keyword is *and*. This has been my main beef with SRT.
Like you said in another thread. That is your beef with SRT as off
now. Once he has a great series, the next will be his inability to
play well in the 4th innings while chasing. And so on and so forth.
> Yes VVSL's 281 against Aus was on a flat track, but the attack
> was great. Why couldn't SRT come up with 281, eh? Oops I forgot.
> He wants both the conditions to be satisfied for a 70+ avg
> series. Now don't gargle ur mouth with poison. Look at his
> career stats first. Why is that he never has problem having
> a great series against NZ/Eng/Zim/Lanka at home. A series
> against Pak, RSA, Aus and the avg dips to sub 50. In fact
> mostly close to 40.
Let me use your hypocritical logic. I have the highest regards for SMG
but I am using this strictly to illustrate your cynical approach and
attitude.
<RK_SLAMMNIG_HAT>
Why did SMG fail so miserably against Aus against Lillee? He did not
have problems dealing with a wounded Thommo, Wayne Clark, and Tony
Mann. And an average of 154 against a bunch of no hopers in WI in 1971
but a 30 average when confronted with the WI fab four? 80+ avg against
Imran & Sarfaraz in 78, down to 48 in 82 and further down to 40 a few
years later. Why this progressive dip as Imran kept getting better?
And not to mention the total failure against Hadlee in NZ in 81. He
did not have problems feasting on Packer ravaged WI and Aus attacks.
Why these dips against quality bowling? And why the failures on all
the tours to England barring the 79 tour? Thank God South Africa was
not playing during SMG's era because one shudders to think what his
plight would have been??
Once you give me a satisfactory and logical answer to all of the
above, I will answer your question about why SRT's average dips below
40 against Pak, RSA, and Aus. I am clueless about the game and just
write good English. But you are the undisputed cricket expert on RSC.
So why don't you try and explain SMG's perennial failures against
quality bowling? I know you have ducked this unpleasant questions a
few time but please don't do try to wriggle out again.
And while you are at it, I have a very big beef about SMG. He has just
proven himself as a boring accumulator of runs. But when has he really
dominated the quality bowling on fast and bouncy tracks? I mean like
SRT's 116 against McGrath and co in 1999, or 165 against Donald and Co
in Cape Town, or his 155 against SA in Bloemfontain earlier this year,
or his 114 against Aus at Perth? I could go on and on about brilliant
knocks by SRT where he beat the crap out of the best attacks. But you
know what? Despite SMG scoring 11000 runs, I can't recount too many
such knocks against good attacks on fast bouncy tracks. In fact,
except the knock in Delhi (on a flat pitch) against Marshal and Co in
1982, I can't recount a single inning. That will remain the biggest
complaint against SMG really. That will prevent me from inducting him
into my hall of fame.
</RK_SLAMMNIG_HAT>
> Over the hill Sarfraz took 17 wkts.
> Mediocre Imran took 14 wkts.
> Hmm interesting.
>
> If SMG had played like SRT against them, then it would have
> 0-3 whitewash and that too by an innings every match.
You mean like the 1989/90 series with SRT in the squad, which was the
only series an Indian team drew on Pak soil? SRT did not do much on
that series, but it proves how hollow your 0-3 whitewash logic is.
Tough luck - all the series involving SMG in Pakistan, we ended up
losing.
> Now why I include that series. Someone in rsc wrote this:-
>
> "Any indian will admit that playing against Pakistan is
> toughest bcos of the pressure". Do u remember who wrote
> this. It was you.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. Remember your own condition regarding flat tracks
*and* great attacks requirement? Even if one were to grant that Imran
was at his prime in 1978, which he clearly was not, nobody in his
right senses will say that the wickets in that series were not flat.
So by your self imposed rules, I am sorry to say that I would have to
throw out SMG's great series. Sorry, but stupid rules one makes come
back to haunt you sooner or later. Nice try though.
>
> SRT couldn't handle Pak bowling with over the hill
> Akram in 1999 and that too at home, while having
> the benefit of home + neutral umpire. Just to irritate
> you, this is what he scored: 0,136,6,29,0,9.[Oh boy
> I just love mentioning the score again and again].
And if SRT had scored 2 hundreds and and a couple of 50's, you would
have praised him to the high heavens? NOT. You would anyway disqualify
it on the grounds that it was a raddi attack on flat tracks. And what
were the scores of our other illustrious batsmen in the same series?
Dravid, Ganguly, VVSL?
> He completely crapped
> in batting when all India required was few good
> 30s/40s to win the Chennai and Kolkata test.
Just like SMG crapped in the Bangalore test and we ended up losing our
first test on Indian soil to Pakistan. SRT was clearly following the
great precedents set by the greatest Indian cricketer ever. That's
the least he could do, isn't it?
> SMG's 1978 series was in Pakistan with the legendary duo
> of Shakoor Rana and Khizar Haiyat. Given that, a score
> of 89,5,97, 111 and 137 is 1000 times better than
> SRT's spineless batting against Pak.
And how about SMG's spineless batting against Denniss Lillee and Co?
And Hadlee and Co? And Garner and Co? And ..... . I could go on and
on. But I guess you get my drift. Again SRT was clearly following the
great precedents set by the greatest Indian cricketer ever.
>
>
> > Eng 81/82 - mediocre Eng attack.
Typo. Was referring to the 79 series. The only one series in England
SMG could do something. It was about time considering it was his 4th
tour. Talk about being 4th time lucky.
> Do u even read other's post. Or are u blind also.
I am not blind, but you certainly seem to be - I mean Akkal ka Andha.
> More proof that u don't read. That was a fine series. When
> did I deny this.
No, you didn't deny it. But you didn't acknowlege it either. Have you
mentioned anything positive about SRT, without any fine print, at any
point in time? If a person new to cricket reads your posts on SRT, he
would think that SRT is the biggest loser and the most overrated jerk
ever.
> He showed his class in that 114 and by the time the
>
> series ended, it became evident
>
> that he was India's best batsman.
Are you sure about your above statements. Or have you forgotten to add
your usual disclaimers?
> > Including 1 great 100 when everybody was falling like 9 pins
>
>
> RD scored 81 and VVSL 65. Which match are u talking about.
Good question. Practice what you preach - read the post carefully. I
was talking about the India series Down Under in 99/00. RD did not
even have a single 50 in that series. In fact apart from VVSL 165
after he was given a return plain ticket in Sydney, no other Indian
bat could break 50. And considering how even vastly better sides
Pak/SA and great batsmen (Lara - avg 32) have performed recently with
the bat recently, it would be certainly treated as great series. At
least the Aussies thought so and awarded him the man of the series.
> > And at least 2 controversial dismissals.
>
>
> All of SRT's dismissals are controversial. Happy?
> At least I have never offered this excuse for SMG.
The Pakistani umpire bit - Shakoor Rana and Co - was just mentioned as
a footnote.
> I knew this point would be raised. May be u are right. We should
> exclude 3rd test. I also agree with you that had he scored well
> in that 'unofficial' test, we should pressurise ICC to declare it official.
If you knew this point would be raised, why try pulling a fast one?
Sure, I would have pressurized the ICC to get it included if he had
done well. But would you have given SRT credit for those knocks? NOT.
> His batting against RSA in that series: 155,15,1,22*,27,40.
>
> Obviously a great series for SRT. What was I thinking?
Yes, when one considers that all other star batsmen - Dravid, VVSL,
and Gangs - were back in the hut after exposing their total ineptness
in handling the short and bouncy stuff. That's when SRT strode in the
middle and scored 155 at almost a run a ball.
> NO NO NO. I am not discrediting it bcos of flat track. It was bcos
> it was flat track *plus* raddi attack.
Right, I had forgotten. Silly me.
>
> SRT scores against Pakistan in Sharjah:
>
> 20,52*,49,0,73,24,4,1,118,3,11,10.
>
> That 118 was against the might attack of Attar-U-Reham, Aquib Javed
> and Bekar Younis.
>
> Against RSA on the same ground:-
> 2,17,57,5,39.
>
> Wonderful batting isn't it.
>
> RK-
Have they relaid the Sharjah track or has Sharjah moved southwards
because of the continental drift? Even if Sachin had averaged 100
against Pak and SA would it have mattered? It would still be on the
flat Asian tracks, wouldn't it?
Cheers,
Vinay
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> Like you said in another thread. That is your beef with SRT as
>off
> now. Once he has a great series, the next will be his
inability >to
> play well in the 4th innings while chasing. And so on and so
>forth.
with due respect to ur pyschic abilities, please stick to
what I asked, not what I am going to ask.
> Why did SMG fail so miserably against Aus against Lillee?
<drums rolling>
and hence SRT's had a great series against quality attack.
</drums rolling>
by asking such question, u have unambigously answered that
you have no answer to my question.
The issue is not whether SRT has scored runs against
quality attack. Everyone knows he has some terrific
100s against every team. If this makes u happy,
if I have to compile best 100s by an Indian, SRT will
be clearly ahead of SMG.
This thread is about whether he has any great series.
Whether he dominates quality attack. And SRT fails
on that count badly.
Coming to SMG, here are few points:
1. SMG's avg against Pak minus raddi Pak team
of 1983 and 1984 is 53 something. That is in
20 tests.
2. SMG's avg against good WI attack (minus
1971 and 1978) series is 43 something in
17 test matches.
Does it look great. No. Then what is so
special about it compared to SRT. Nothing
except that SRT's career avg against RSA and
Pak and good Aus attack is ~40. This is career
avg of SRT who has played 14 test matches
against RSA, 7 against Pak, and 12 against
good Aus attack.
SMG's avg (49) against Imran at his best(1982) > the best
series SRT ever had against RSA.
SRT has played 5 series against RSA and could not come
up with one series as good as SMG's 1982 series vs Pak.
In 1996 SRT played 6 tests against RSA. 3 in India and
few weeks later 3 in RSA. In those 6 tests he had
1 50 and 1 100. That is in 12 inngs. Rest 10 inngs he shat.
Now Sundar anne, don't try to wiggle out by that 3
test criteria. That 6 tests was played back to back
with hardly any gap. almost like one series.
> I am clueless about the game and just
> write good English.
actually I was not referring you :-)
> And while you are at it, I have a very big beef about SMG. He
>has just
> proven himself as a boring accumulator of runs. But when has
he >really
> dominated the quality bowling on fast and bouncy tracks?
do u have a split personality. In another thread u wrote this:-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SMG - an opener with a copy book technique, with tremendous powers of
concentration, with unlimited amount of patience, determination, and
the single minded dedication to grind out an attack, and with the
innate ability to detect a bad ball and dispatch it to the fence.
SRT - a flamboyant middle order bat, an attacking batsman who makes
things happen rather than wait for things to happen, a risk taker who
plays by sheer instinct based on in-born talents. Perfectly
capable of
dispatching a good ball to the boundary but equally capable of
throwing his wicket away to a mediocre delivery.
~~~~~~~~~~
when u have understood SMG so well, why the beef?
> In fact,
> except the knock in Delhi (on a flat pitch) against Marshal
and >Co in
> 1982,
may be u were in sandaas when he scored 90 in A'bad.
> Tough luck - all the series involving SMG in Pakistan, we
ended >up
>losing.
Big deal.
Guess which is the only series we won against Pak.
>Even if one were to grant that Imran
>was at his prime in 1978, which he clearly was not, nobody in >his
>right senses will say that the wickets in that series were not
>flat.
SMG against Imran at his best >> SRT in any series
against RSA or Pak.
> And if SRT had scored 2 hundreds and and a couple of 50's, you
>would
> have praised him to the high heavens? NOT.
dial 1-800-VINAY-SAN for top class psychic advice.
> Typo. Was referring to the 79 series. The only one series in
>England
> SMG could do something. It was about time considering it was
>his 4th
> tour. Talk about being 4th time lucky.
that was his 3rd tour.
if that was a mediocre attack, then Zim's attack
is DA best. Did u read Uday Rajan's post, or as usual
u have a split personality - I will agree with Uday
but disagree with RK.
Uday has mentioned the same point what I have mentioned.
>>All of SRT's dismissals are controversial. Happy?
>>At least I have never offered this excuse for SMG.
>>
>
> The Pakistani umpire bit - Shakoor Rana and Co - was just
>mentioned as
> a footnote.
u need a course in english also. that would have been
an excuse if SMG failed. I was praising SMG for scoring
high despite pak umpires. even without pak umpires
his scores of 89,5,97,111,137 was great.
>>His batting against RSA in that series: 155,15,1,22*,27,40.
>>
>>Obviously a great series for SRT. What was I thinking?
>>
>
> Yes, when one considers that all other star batsmen - Dravid,
VVSL,
> and Gangs - were back in the hut after exposing their total
ineptness
> in handling the short and bouncy stuff. That's when SRT strode
in the
> middle and scored 155 at almost a run a ball.
<drums rolling>
dravid/vvsl/ganduly are crap. hence SRT is great
</drums rolling>
BTW this RSA attack is crap. Pollock was fucked in
Aus recently. RSA was whupped 0-3. what is so
great about this RSA attack.
So there is nothing great in 155, which is the only
good inngs he played in that series.
I am using ur own logic.
RK-
R. Bharat Rao
> The issue is not whether SRT has scored runs against
> quality attack. Everyone knows he has some terrific
> 100s against every team. If this makes u happy,
> if I have to compile best 100s by an Indian, SRT will
> be clearly ahead of SMG.
>
> This thread is about whether he has any great series.
> Whether he dominates quality attack. And SRT fails
> on that count badly.
Actually this thread is (was?) about SRT vs SCG in ODI, but
now its about SRT vs SMG in Tests.
For FWIW I think SMG was a better Test bat that SRT (every
list of Indian Test greats I make starts SMG, SRT, Kapil, Mankad..).
But, thats based on the fact that I give a lot of weight to match-saving
innings, not just match-winning ones.
That said, I fail to see how "dominating a series" defines greatness
in a batsman.
Mohindar Amarnath dominated two series against the best attacks
in the world like few before or since; certainly much more than
his contemporary Gavaskar did against such a super attack -- but,
no one talks of him in the same sentence as Gavaskar (or Tendulkar).
"Domination" is a measure of peak value, in some sense.
Shouldn't "greatness" be defined more by career value than anything
else? So, if Tendulkar had 10 quality tons (by whatever definition of
quality you choose -- that say takes into account situation, pace attack
quality, pitch, home/abroad -- what have you), I don't see if it matters
if they were bunched in 3 series or spread out over 10 series...
After all, given the same # of Tests played, it comes down to the
runs you make...
I'm not trying to get involved in this slug-fest; I'm just trying to
understand
your rationale for choosing this measure for greatness! (FWIW, the fact
that 5-Test series are not played now, is irrelevant -- you have to do,
what you do, with what you get to play... by that measure, its also not
SRT's fault if quality attacks are few and far between.)
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao
E-mail: rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com (remove "-nospam-this")
"The lunatic is in the hall
The lunatics are in my hall
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day the paper boy brings more."
Pink Floyd, "Brain Damage"
Sundar Subramanian
> That said, I fail to see how "dominating a series" defines greatness
> in a batsman.
About time you contributed your mite to the discussion, Bharat :-)
> Mohindar Amarnath dominated two series against the best attacks
> in the world like few before or since; certainly much more than
> his contemporary Gavaskar did against such a super attack -- but,
> no one talks of him in the same sentence as Gavaskar (or Tendulkar).
>
> "Domination" is a measure of peak value, in some sense.
>
> Shouldn't "greatness" be defined more by career value than anything
> else? So, if Tendulkar had 10 quality tons (by whatever definition of
> quality you choose -- that say takes into account situation, pace attack
> quality, pitch, home/abroad -- what have you), I don't see if it matters
> if they were bunched in 3 series or spread out over 10 series...
>
> After all, given the same # of Tests played, it comes down to the
> runs you make...
> I'm not trying to get involved in this slug-fest; I'm just trying to
> understand
> your rationale for choosing this measure for greatness!
Rationale? You must be kidding. Convenience would be a much better word. The
measure for greatness will never be stated clearly, otherwise how will
someone exist in RSC?
> (FWIW, the fact
> that 5-Test series are not played now, is irrelevant -- you have to do,
At least one should adjust whatever measure one uses for a five-Test series
so that it applies correctly to a three-Test series. For example if one deems
two centuries and three fifties in ten innings as a great series, then it
should be adjusted to one century and two (three) fifties, or some such
thing, for a six-inning series. If one deems scoring a huge hundred is a
pre-requisite for having a great series then one has to make allowance for
the fact that a huge score in ten innings is more likely than a huge score in
six innings (assuming that the batsman is capable of making that--Sachin
can).
You said: "I don't see if it matters if they were bunched in 3 series or
spread out over 10 series..."
Here are the scores of a batsman deemed to have had a great series:
5,58, 98*,100*, 8,40, 98,9, 12,60
Here are Sachin's scores against Australia in two consecutive series:
61, 0, 118, 52, 45, 4, 74, 65, 10, 10, 126, 17
Even if one were to omit the last two innings (making it equal number of
innings for both), one can still see that Sachin has done quite well. Add to
it the fact that he was robbed at least THRICE (61, 45, and 17) and was very
^ n (as n tends to infinity) unfortunate when he got out for 65 off a rebound
catch by Ponting. Yet Sachin is not great. Nice logic! (not by you)
> what you do, with what you get to play... by that measure, its also not
> SRT's fault if quality attacks are few and far between.)
Exactly. Saying ( pre-emptive strike!) that the former played against the
mighty WI while Sachin played only against McGrath and co is one example of
such stupidity. It is not Sachin's fault that he was born in 1973 instead of
in the 1950's. In other words, if one wants to base ones decision on data
then one should stick to the data and not invent something else in between.
But I may as well reason with a wall than a flame-hungry crackpot.
Best,
Sundar
rk_u...@yahoo.com
>The
>measure for greatness will never be stated clearly, otherwise
>how will someone exist in RSC?
Just like u haven't stated even once why u rate GRV > SMG
as a batsman. Isn't it time we listen to some profound talk
from u on this subject.
> But I may as well reason with a wall than a flame-hungry crackpot.
You should also tell a wall that SMG wouldn't have got
out at 96 against Pak if he was the captain. At least
the wall wouldn't slap u back to senses.
>Here are the scores of a batsman deemed to have had a great
>series:
>5,58, 98*,100*, 8,40, 98,9, 12,60
avg: 74.
Here are Sachin's scores against Australia in two consecutive series:
>61, 0, 118, 52, 45, 4, 74, 65, 10, 10, 126, 17
avg: 48.
pssssss.
what about this series :- (3 test series)
4 and 66
53 and 9
78 and 126
In case u don't know, it was Border vs WI 1981-82.
Border doesn't seem to crave for a 5 test series
to prove his class :-)
RK-
Gafoor
> This thread is about whether he has any great series.
> Whether he dominates quality attack.
Actually it's about "SRT vs SCG in ODI while chasing"
--
Smokers With Attitude
http://www.smokingsection.com/
Vinay Santurkar
> Vinay Santurkar wrote:
>
> with due respect to ur pyschic abilities, please stick to
> what I asked, not what I am going to ask.
When dealing with a fertile mind like you, one needs to think a few
steps ahead before posting.
>
>
> > Why did SMG fail so miserably against Aus against Lillee?
>
>
> <drums rolling>
> and hence SRT's had a great series against quality attack.
> </drums rolling>
>
> by asking such question, u have unambigously answered that
> you have no answer to my question.
Despite me (and Gafoor) asking the same question about SMG on 3
different threads, all you have come up with is a drum roll each time.
By evading the subject, u have unambigously answered that SMG has
failed whenever he was confronted with quality bowling on fast tracks.
So if you expect unambigous answers, you better give some answers of
your own.
And besides as Bharat has so vividly pointed out, what is this wierd
requirement of a great series that you keep harping about? Is this
requirement gospel just because you say it? Tendulkar has great knocks
against the best bowlers of his era (McGrath, Gillespie, Donald,
Pollock, Ambrose, Akram, Younis, et al), on Indian pitches, in Eng, in
Aus, in SA, in WI, in NZ, in Zim, and in SL. SMG clearly doesn't. So
if I were to use your logic and demand such knocks from SMG as a
measure of his greatness, it would be a travesty. So don't impose your
own notions of greatness on the rest of RSC.
> The issue is not whether SRT has scored runs against
> quality attack. Everyone knows he has some terrific
> 100s against every team. If this makes u happy,
> if I have to compile best 100s by an Indian, SRT will
> be clearly ahead of SMG.
>
> This thread is about whether he has any great series.
> Whether he dominates quality attack. And SRT fails
> on that count badly.
Ok, by the same logic, if the issue is of dominating the great bowlers
of his era (Lillee, Marshal, Garner, Hadlee) outside India, SMG fails
miserably. So that should reduces his greatness. Such thinking can
only come from completely bigoted and cynical person.
> do u have a split personality. In another thread u wrote this:-
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> SMG - an opener with a copy book technique, with tremendous powers of
> concentration, with unlimited amount of patience, determination, and
> the single minded dedication to grind out an attack, and with the
> innate ability to detect a bad ball and dispatch it to the fence.
>
> SRT - a flamboyant middle order bat, an attacking batsman who makes
> things happen rather than wait for things to happen, a risk taker who
> plays by sheer instinct based on in-born talents. Perfectly
> capable of
> dispatching a good ball to the boundary but equally capable of
> throwing his wicket away to a mediocre delivery.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> when u have understood SMG so well, why the beef?
Don't you understand sarcasm? When I was replying to Uday I was
expressing my true opinions about SMG which is that he is our best
test batsman ever. But like Amitabh in the movie Aks, I usually imbibe
your personality while replying to your negative and cynical posting
style. I was just illustrating how easy it is to rip any icon of the
past or present era if one uses your way of thinking. So whenever I
slam SMG in this post or in the future, I am typing with my RK hat on.
Clear? Now that I have clarified, can you care to reply to my beef? Or
another subtle way of wriggling yourself out of uncomfortable
situation. I need answers on why none of SMG's 31 odd hundred are not
against the best bowlers of his era on fast and bouncy tracks.
>
> may be u were in sandaas when he scored 90 in A'bad.
>
That's the best you can come up with? For a man who has scored 31
centuries, I would have thought that you would have come up with
better examples. On 90 in India is all you could muster? ch ch ch.
>
> SMG against Imran at his best >> SRT in any series
> against RSA or Pak.
Why all the comparisons with Imran? Because SMG has done relatively
well agianst him? Aren't your forgetting that the pitches in Pak are
flat and dead? How about SMG against Lillee at his best, SMG against
Hadlee at his best, or SMG against the WI Fab 4 at their best?
BTW, SRT against McGrath at his best >> SMG against any series against
Aus and WI with their best bowlers.
> > And if SRT had scored 2 hundreds and and a couple of 50's, you
> >would
> > have praised him to the high heavens? NOT.
>
> dial 1-800-VINAY-SAN for top class psychic advice.
That's 98220-VINSAN. Toll free for you since you are badly in need of
it.
>
> that was his 3rd tour.
>
Big deal. That's correct BTW. He crapped again on his 4th tour of Eng.
> u have a split personality - I will agree with Uday
> but disagree with RK.
Sure, Uday's opinions are mentioned as genuine criticism. And your's
with the express intent of denigrating an icon. So with you, one has
to leave conventional thinking and logic hat aside and get into the
mud pit.
> if that was a mediocre attack, then Zim's attack
> is DA best.
But why did he fail on all the remaining tours to Eng? I see you are
continously evading this question. Or is it your job to set the ground
rules of your choice (which is usually heads I win, tails you lose)
and then ask questions and expect replies from the others?
>
> <drums rolling>
> dravid/vvsl/ganduly are crap. hence SRT is great
> </drums rolling>
>
It does indicate something, doesn't it? When all the remaining good
bats fail miserably and one other comes up with 155 on a fast and
bouncy track. I wish one of SMG's 31 centuries came even close.
> BTW this RSA attack is crap. Pollock was fucked in
> Aus recently. RSA was whupped 0-3. what is so
> great about this RSA attack.
>
> So there is nothing great in 155, which is the only
> good inngs he played in that series.
> I am using ur own logic.
Hey, weren't you the one using RSA as the benchmark to show how
pathetic SRT was?
Cheers,
Vinay
mayurd
> Sundar Subramanian wrote:
>
> >The
> >measure for greatness will never be stated clearly, otherwise
> >how will someone exist in RSC?
>
> Just like u haven't stated even once why u rate GRV > SMG
> as a batsman. Isn't it time we listen to some profound talk
> from u on this subject.
>
>
> > But I may as well reason with a wall than a flame-hungry crackpot.
>
>
> You should also tell a wall that SMG wouldn't have got
> out at 96 against Pak if he was the captain. At least
> the wall wouldn't slap u back to senses.
>
> >Here are the scores of a batsman deemed to have had a great
> >series:
> >5,58, 98*,100*, 8,40, 98,9, 12,60
>
> avg: 74.
runs/inn = 48.8
>
> Here are Sachin's scores against Australia in two consecutive series:
> >61, 0, 118, 52, 45, 4, 74, 65, 10, 10, 126, 17
>
> avg: 48.
>
runs/inn = 48.5
> pssssss.
afcourse u wont bother considering the 4 bad umpiring decisions he got
in only these 2 series. umpiring was a factor you took into account
while evaluating SMG's series against PAK IIRC.
mayurd
rk_u...@yahoo.com
>> >Here are the scores of a batsman deemed to have had a great
>> >series:
>> >5,58, 98*,100*, 8,40, 98,9, 12,60
>>
>>avg: 74.
>>
>
> runs/inn = 48.8
>
>
>>Here are Sachin's scores against Australia in two consecutive series:
>> >61, 0, 118, 52, 45, 4, 74, 65, 10, 10, 126, 17
>>
>>avg: 48.
What is this with SRT fanatics. Are they all bozos or what?
Border had 2 not outs. The great WI could not get him out
twice in a match in which he saved Aus from defeat. Far
from giving credit to him, u are taking it away so that
his performance is brought down to the level of SRT.
I have an idea. Let us flatten all score above 100
as same. So, a 213 == 113.
> afcourse u wont bother considering the 4 bad umpiring decisions he got
> in only these 2 series.
Yes SRT always gets bad decision, happy?
> umpiring was a factor you took into account
> while evaluating SMG's series against PAK IIRC.
Not as an excuse for his sucking. He was great despite
umpires.
RK-
Sundar Subramanian
Best,
Sundar
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> Despite me (and Gafoor) asking the same question about SMG on 3
> different threads, all you have come up with is a drum roll each time.
> By evading the subject, u have unambigously answered that SMG has
> failed whenever he was confronted with quality bowling on fast tracks.
> So if you expect unambigous answers, you better give some answers of
> your own.
Wait for a day or so. I will post a reply to the query
about SMG.
rest snipped except ...
>>BTW this RSA attack is crap. Pollock was fucked in
>>Aus recently. RSA was whupped 0-3. what is so
>>great about this RSA attack.
>>
>>So there is nothing great in 155, which is the only
> Hey, weren't you the one using RSA as the benchmark to show how
> pathetic SRT was?
>
Yeah, but this is the not the only series against RSA
he played and he wasn't great in any series.
Generally when people say RSA attack is great, it means
whatever they were most of the time and that excludes
the recent RSA attack, which IMO is mediocre. Just like
1997 WI attack (read Uday Rajan's post).
For e.g., WI attack of 80s was great. does that include the
1987 attack in India after the WC.
RK-
Vinay Santurkar
> mayurd wrote:
>
>
>
> Not as an excuse for his sucking. He was great despite
> umpires.
>
> RK-
Remember when SMG was ruled out LBW to Lillee in Melbourne and he
almost created international cricketing history by walking out of a
match? SMG was frusturated by the quality of poor umpiring in that
series. Only players who play and excel at the highest level can
understand the frusturation when one is robbed when in full flow. So
the problem that is pointed out in SRT's case is a genuine one and not
an excuse you make it out to be. One can understand one bad decision
but its when it comes in bunches is when it becomes a problem.
Cheers,
Vinay
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> Remember when SMG was ruled out LBW to Lillee in Melbourne and he
> almost created international cricketing history by walking out of a
> match? SMG was frusturated by the quality of poor umpiring in that
> series. Only players who play and excel at the highest level can
> understand the frusturation when one is robbed when in full flow. So
> the problem that is pointed out in SRT's case is a genuine one and not
> an excuse you make it out to be. One can understand one bad decision
> but its when it comes in bunches is when it becomes a problem.
Has anyone ever seen me using that LBW as an excuse
to justify SMG's failure.
SMG was shafted quite a few times.
97 in Lahore.
96 vs Pak in B'lore. Per Binny the ball didn't hit
the bat. And so was Raju Bharatan.
70 in Melbourne.
If I were like a SRT fan, I can easily make an issue
of the above and claim that in all the 3 inngs he
was well on his way for a glorious 150.
Stop being a sissy. In the long run everything evens out.
The one credit I give to SRT is that he didn't make
an ass of himself like what SMG did in Melbourne.
RK-
Takla Saand
Dogs to mate with cats tomorrow -- read last week's Times.
(New York Times ? Times of India ? Washington Times ?
Wednesday's news ? Thursday's ? Friday's ?)
Anyways, I admit I did get suckered (doesn't take a lot) into
going back and reading "Uday Rajan's post". Here's what it says:
******************************************************
As I say, I'm getting forgetful, but my memory tells me
that Bishop was only about half the bowler after his
back injury. And that his back injury preceded India's
tour to the WI in '97. Willis, OTOH, was about as good
as ever in '77-83 or thereabouts. As to who was better
than whom, Botham or Roberts or Willis or Bishop, I
really have no position on. One could make a case any
which way on that one.
*****************************************************
And here was I, calling the WI bowling the "No spin zone".
(Indian batting - the "No spine zone".)
rk_u...@yahoo.com
>>Generally when people say RSA attack is great, it means
>>whatever they were most of the time and that excludes
>>the recent RSA attack, which IMO is mediocre. Just like
>>1997 WI attack (read Uday Rajan's post).
> Anyways, I admit I did get suckered (doesn't take a lot) into
> going back and reading "Uday Rajan's post". Here's what it says:
> ******************************************************
> As I say, I'm getting forgetful, but my memory tells me
> that Bishop was only about half the bowler after his
> back injury. And that his back injury preceded India's
> tour to the WI in '97. Willis, OTOH, was about as good
> as ever in '77-83 or thereabouts. As to who was better
> than whom, Botham or Roberts or Willis or Bishop, I
> really have no position on. One could make a case any
> which way on that one.
> *****************************************************
Per Vinay, the 1979 Eng bowling was mediocre.
anyhow Uday wrote this also about 1997 WI:-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In any case, if the point is that
Tendulkar had an outstanding series in the WI against
Ambrose and Walsh, I don't know. Here's where my own
subjectivity surfaces again: those were slow pitches
for the most part, and neither Ambrose nor Walsh were
quite in it (witness Dravid's series, which was even
better). Tendulkar gritted it out, though, and that was
admirable. He was clearly not at his best through most
of that series (barring a few moments in the first
innings at Barbados), but hung out there and ground out
his runs.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It hardly seems to be complimentary of WI bowling
in that series. Notice the reference to Dravid,
same what I made in my post. Gafoor must be
happy. Now Dravid is being quoted as the ultimate
proof of how mediocre the bowling was :-)
cheers.
RK-
yeskay
> Not as an excuse for his sucking. He was great despite
> umpires.
IIRC, SMG was given a benefit of doubt by Pak umpire while he went on
to score one of the two hundereds (where he scored two 100s in the same
match) in that Pak series. This was done to compensate for a bad
decision SMG had got in a previous occasion.
Arjun Pandit
>
> The one credit I give to SRT is that he didn't make
> an ass of himself like what SMG did in Melbourne.
Did SMG make an ass of himself in Melbourne due to what could be
deemed as basic inability?
curious.
>
> RK-
vainy
> 96 vs Pak in B'lore. Per Binny the ball didn't hit
> the bat. And so was Raju Bharatan.
>
I have a vague memory that imran also admitted afterwards that SMG
was not out.
Mike Holmans
the keyboard and brought forth:
>I never said that Willis+Botham > Ambrose+Walsh. However
>I am positive that in 1979 in England, Willis+Botham >> 1997
>Ambrose+Walsh. If Amby/Walsh were so great then how did
>they end up with such horrible figures against India in 1997.
I have to admit to being a bit confused about exactly what is being
compared to what here, because Sadiq was on about Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop
and Bishop wasn't around in 1997.
But I think I'm just about in agreement with RK, or at least that the
very specific comparison he's drawing may have some justice to it. I
suspect that in England in 1979, Willis and Botham were both more
dangerous bowlers than Walsh at most points in his career. Viv
Richards maintains that Willis was the second-best non-WI fast bowler
he faced, behind Denis Lillee, which is a fair old endorsement, and
Botham 1.0, the young bloke who could swing the ball both ways with
almost equal facility, was a supreme English-conditions bowler.
(But 1979 was the end of Botham 1.0, because after that his back was
gone and he could only swing it one way, and with nothing like then
venom he'd had before. 1980 was the debut of Botham 2.0, a better
batsman but worse bowler than 1.0, who played until about 1984 before
being replaced by Botham 3.0, a fat old drunk who lived on past
glories.)
Neither Botham nor Willis ever approached, though, the sort of
standard which Ambrose upheld throughout his career.
I realise I'm something of a heretic, but I was never that much of a
fan of Courtney Walsh. He has 500 Test wickets, in my view, because he
was around for donkey's years and there was no-one to replace him,
much like the way Kapil reached 434 instead of 370 or so. Sure, he was
a good bowler, and better than a lot of his contemporary English
competition (eg Cork, Malcolm), but I wouldn't have picked him ahead
of Fraser (early 90s) or Gough (late 90s).
But this thread isn't about whether Walsh in 1997 was a better bowler
than Botham in 1979, but about SRT.
I don't know that I necessarily agree with RK, mostly because I'm not
quite sure what his point is today and whether it will be the same one
as tomorrow or yesterday, but I think he's effectively asking the same
question that always occurs to me: why, if SRT is as great as his
supporters suggest, am I not all that impressed by him? Because I'm
not.
One strand of it is that he has rarely played Test match innings in
which he has taken serious good bowling apart and made excellent
bowlers look like club ones, or even the monumental 8-hour-plus double
centuries (or near-doubles, like Atherton's 185*) on which lesser
players been known to hang whole careers on. I remember agreeing with
Sidney Thomas a few months ago on the subject of walking home from a
match and talking in tones of wonder at what you've just seen, and
saying that's a regular occurrence with Lara but not with SRT. (Test
matches only - be clear about that.)
Part of that is because India lose so many of their matches.
Atherton's 185* wouldn't have half the resonance it does if it hadn't
saved the match. If England had lost that game, it would be an innings
which some Atherton fans would still harp on about, but which most of
the rest of the world would have already forgotten about. But few of
SRT's best performances have actually resulted in very much. The 136
at Chennai, for instance, which RK likes to characterise as "running
away", simply held up India's familiar loss for a bit longer as the
rest of the batsmen fell away. Contrast that with Gavaskar's famous
221 at The Oval: I'm always faintly surprised when I look up that
match for whatever reason and realise that England got Gavaskar out
and that it was two tail-enders who hung on for those last few tense
minutes. In SRT's case, the supporting cast weren't up to the job,
whereas SMG's cohorts were.
So, let's not be rude about SRT - it's not his fault that the rest of
the team sucks rocks. I think that's the line here, isn't it?
Well, no, not exactly perhaps. It would be ludicrous to *blame* SRT
for directly adversely affecting the play of his team-mates, because
it is quite apparent that he is only too keen to help them out. But I
do wonder how badly the rest of the team is affected by what is
plainly apparent - that neither the majority of the Indian press nor
most of the Indan fans have more than a passing interest in what
anyone else in the team does, and that they are just bit-players in
the Superstar Sachin Show. People like Dravid and Laxman are pretty
decent players, but most of the time they're regarded somewhat
dismissively because they'll never compare to SRT.
Again, contrast that with the SMG era. Everyone knew that Gavaskar was
the best batsman in the Indian team, but there were Vishy and Jimmy
Amarnath and DBV too, and whilst it was a blow when SMG was out, it
didn't plunge the rest of the team and crowd into despair.
Now let us look at another curious affair: the recent IvE Test series.
England screwed up in the First Test, but had the better of the draws
in the Second and Third. SRT was the major Indian batsman: England's
entire game plan revolved around how they intended to cope with him,
he averaged 80 or so in the series, and yet where does he get any
credit for having frustrated England and saved India from defeat? OK,
England's bowlers were inexperienced and had no track record, but the
game isn't actually played on the field by sitting down and examining
the players' previous stats. Hoggard and Flintoff bowled very well
indeed, holding their lines and lengths with great discipline and
dedication, and causing a lot of problems for nearly everyone except
SRT, who was actually attempting to score runs off them, and Dasgupta,
who wasn't. Yet SRT gets little praise for his efforts, without which
England would probably have won their second successive sub-continent
series coming back from 1-0 down. Why? Just because India had managed
to fluke a comeback series victory against Australia through one of
the most improbable fightback stands in Test history so beating
England should have been a cakewalk? As Paul Robson has pointed out,
the major consequence of fluked series wins like that is that it
blinds the winning team to any massive structural flaws in their
edifice.
I dunno. I suppose it just seems that the reality doesn't quite match
the hype. There's a little painting in an art gallery in Paris which
gets quite a lot of attention, by a chap called Leonardo something,
but I can't say that I was all that impressed by the Mona Lisa when I
saw it for real. I mean, I can see it's a painting by a consummate
artist, but is that all there is?
Cheers,
Mike
rk_u...@yahoo.com
>I'm always faintly surprised when I look up that
>match for whatever reason and realise that England got Gavaskar out
>and that it was two tail-enders who hung on for those last few tense
>minutes. In SRT's case, the supporting cast weren't up to the job,
>whereas SMG's cohorts were.
Misrepresentation of facts.
In the oval test, the last 2 tail enders played around 11
balls to *save* the match.
In the Chennai test, after SRT left, the tailenders had to
*win* the match.
For tail enders, difference in the job of saving the match
by playing couple of overs, is vastly different from trying
to win a match by scoring 16 runs. I assure you, there is
no way India would have saved the Oval match, let alone win,
if England had few more overs to bowl. Botham and co would
have eaten Bharat Reddy and Bedi (ha ha ha).
Same happened in the Adelaide test 1981 when Ghavri
and Yadav played last over to save the match.
RK-
Takla Saand
> Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>>I'm always faintly surprised when I look up that
>>match for whatever reason and realise that England got Gavaskar out
>>and that it was two tail-enders who hung on for those last few tense
>>minutes. In SRT's case, the supporting cast weren't up to the job,
>>whereas SMG's cohorts were.
>
> Misrepresentation of facts.
>
> In the oval test, the last 2 tail enders played around 11
> balls to *save* the match.
>
> In the Chennai test, after SRT left, the tailenders had to
> *win* the match.
>
> For tail enders, difference in the job of saving the match
> by playing couple of overs, is vastly different from trying
> to win a match by scoring 16 runs. I assure you, there is
> no way India would have saved the Oval match, let alone win,
> if England had few more overs to bowl. Botham and co would
> have eaten Bharat Reddy and Bedi (ha ha ha).
Just like McGrath and co. ate Dighe, Zaheer & Harby in the
Chennai test (ha ha ha) ?
Oh, I forget, it's the resident psychic speaking.
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> Just like McGrath and co. ate Dighe, Zaheer & Harby in the
> Chennai test (ha ha ha) ?
Chennai test was played in *India* with 1 *indian* umpire.
Just ask Mcgrath about what he thinks about Jayaprakash
and that LBW appeal against Dighe when India was still 10
runs short. And don't forget to book a bed in a
hospital before asking Mcgrath.
> Oh, I forget, it's the resident psychic speaking.
But I have not forgotten that u are a takla.
Here the takla is not something above the scalp,
but *below* it. Wait a minute. It got to be
above the scalp, bcos to lose , one
must have something in the first place. Sorry.
RK-